Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MC Elloy Pipeline
MC Elloy Pipeline
US venture capital (VC) investment in a Hectares (millions) an estimated market value of $4.25 billion
biotechnology increased from less than 4% 0 30 60 90 120 150 (see Fig. 1).
(of total VC funding) in 2000 (ref. 1) to 9% in Maize Output traits include those for improving
2002 (http://www.ventureeconomics.com). food and feed quality as well as those involved
However, of those venture capitalists who in food processing and bioprocessing (see
Soybeans
claim a significant interest in the life sciences, Table 1). They target opportunities for differ-
only a handful have invested in agricultural entiating commodity crop products, such as
Cotton
or other industrial biotechnologies. Why has generating soybean plants yielding oil low in
this situation arisen, what are the potential polyunsaturated fats. Output trait products
consequences for research, competition and Canola (see Table 2) include the following: plants
economic growth in agriculture, and what transformed with genes for commercially
can be done to rectify this state of affairs so GM Other valuable oils (including lubricants), proteins
that an innovative and robust industry can b and starches; plants transformed to alter fatty
evolve to realize the full potential of agricul- 60 acid composition; plants transformed to
tural biotechnology? 50 modify seed storage proteins and amino acid
United States profiles; and plants transformed to alter car-
Hectares (millions)
40
Opportunities abound bon-partitioning for novel starch produc-
There is a broad spectrum of innovative 30 tion2. A first generation of output traits was
product opportunities currently being commercialized in the 1990s, including prod-
20
addressed in agbiotechnology (see Table 1). Argentina ucts such as Calgene’s (Davis, CA, USA; now
These opportunities can be classified as meet- 10 part of Monsanto) FlavrSavr tomato with
Canada
ing needs in crop productivity (input traits), China
0
delayed fruit softening for longer ‘on-the-
food and bioprocessing (output traits) or 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 vine’ maturation and improved flavor (Table
nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals (health or ©Rebecca Henretta 2). However, this first generation of con-
medicinal traits). There are also a number of Figure 1 Worldwide area cultivated with sumer-oriented products have all been with-
genomics and enabling technologies that have transgenic crops. (a) Acreage in 2002. (b) Growth drawn from the market because, for different
applications in agbiotechnology. in acreage in the United States, Argentina, reasons, they failed to capture enough value
Thus far, the majority of approved crops Canada and China, 1996–2002. Source: Clive to warrant their continued production.
James, ISAAA
under cultivation are transgenic for input Even so, ongoing efforts to minimize
traits. Such traits (see Table 1) include financial risk within traditional agriculture
genes for yield enhancement and pest con- continue to stimulate vertical integration
trol (e.g., Monsanto’s (St. Louis, MO, associated with the use of agbiotechnology within many agribusiness value chains,
USA) RoundupReady corn for tolerance products can be readily calculated and con- encourage contract growing with farmers to
to glyphosate-containing herbicides, and sequently the pricing of these products at the meet predefined product-quality specifica-
Monsanto’s Bollgard Bacillus thuringiensis producer level is relatively straightforward. tions and promote an end-product orienta-
(Bt) cotton for lepidopteran insect control). Finally, a value sharing mechanism, involv- tion among producers with an associated
These transgenic plant products generate ing a distribution (between seed companies focus on the measurement and categoriza-
economic benefit for farmers and retail con- and technology providers) of the technology tion of crop-quality characteristics. The
sumers by lowering the financial and envi- access fees or seed premiums collected from development of the next generation of trans-
ronmental costs of crop production. Input the farmer-producers is already well estab- genic output-trait products will aim to take
traits currently on the market represent lished for this first generation of agbiotech- advantage of these ongoing agribusiness
alternatives to the products of the agricul- nology products. developments, generating additional value
tural chemicals industry, such as sprays for In the seven years since their first com- by improving the specific measurable prop-
insect control. The cost savings to farmers mercial introduction, transgenic crops con- erties of commodity products to meet the
taining input traits have been rapidly cost, quality and health demands of increas-
adopted in a number of important agricul- ingly sophisticated consumers. This new
David McElroy is at Verdia, Inc., 200 Penobscot tural markets, and to date have been cumu- generation of output traits will have to do all
Drive, Redwood City, California 94063, USA. latively grown on over 700 million acres of this in a manner that creates enough
e-mail: david.mcelroy@verdiainc.com (283.5 million hectares). In 2002 alone, 145 profit throughout each step of the product
The views expressed here are those of the author million acres (58.7 million hectares) of value chain to support their ongoing com-
and not the author’s current employer. transgenic crops were grown globally, with mercialization. For example, in the case of
Apple and melon Altered fruit ripening Delayed fruit spoilage Approved for commercialization Exelixis (S. San Francisco, CA, USA)
Soybeans High oleic-acid oil Reduced polyunsaturated fat content Commercialized in 1997a DuPont
Reduce processing costs
High oxidative stability
Long shelf/frying life
© 2003 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology
Soybeans Improved animal nutrition Increased levels of amino acids In development Monsanto
(methionine and lysine) in meal Pioneer Hi-Bred (DuPont)
Canola High lauric oil Replacement for coconut/palm oil Commercialized in 1995a Calgene
(Laurical) (now Monsanto)
Canola High stearate oil Solid oil at room temperature In development Monsanto
Baking, margarine, confectionery foods
Corn Improved amino acid Increased levels of amino acids In development Monsanto
profiles (tryptophan, lysine) in feed
Corn Increased starch level Higher corn starch yield In development BASF
Cotton Fiber pigmented Reduce need for chemical dyes In research Monsanto
Cotton Improved fiber quality Improved fiber quality, e.g., polyester In research Monsanto
Cotton Improved seed oil Improved feed quality In research CSIRO (Sydney, Australia)
Tomato Delayed fruit ripening Improved fruit maturation Commercialized in 1994a Calgene (Monsanto)
(FlavrSavr)
Tomato Delayed fruit ripening Improved fruit maturation Commercialized in 1995 DNAP (Oakland, CA, USA;
(Endless Summer) now BioNova)
aSubsequently withdrawn from market.
genic crops has restricted development to agbiotechnology products in the hands of a tory costs will lead to the creation of two
the adoption of new traits in US dominant small number of large agribusiness players. classes of crops: first, those large acreage
row crops, such as corn, for which EU Ironically, this consumer advocate–driven crops able to financially justify the applica-
approval is unimportant for US exporters. regulatory barrier is further encouraging the tion of agbiotechnology and second, all other
Retail consumer demands for ever-increas- development of the kinds of large corporate crops that cannot afford these costs.
ing regulatory oversight of agbiotechnology agribusiness that the very same groups com- Industry consolidation issues. Declining
products, although intended to allay con- plain about. Given the escalating costs of reg- revenues in the agrochemical industry, in part
cerns about the environmental safety of ulatory approvals, only products addressing brought on by the success of agbiotechnology
transgenic products, have created a signifi- opportunities in the large acreage crops (e.g., products, has led to consolidation as agro-
cant financial barrier to entry for agbiotech- corn, soybean, cotton and canola) can justify chemical companies seek to maintain incomes
nology startups, as well as for academic and the required investment in gaining regulatory by cutting costs, including rationalizing their
government groups seeking to advance approval for transgenic traits. This hinders merged R&D activities. In 1995, there were
transgenic crop traits. The regulatory the exploitation of agricultural biotechnolo- eleven large agrochemical companies with
approval costs for agbiotechnology products gies in the minor crops and restricts licensing interests in agbiotechnology. Today, as a result
are estimated to have increased from $5–10 opportunities for both private and public of mergers, there are only six, and by
million per transgenic crop product during sector technology providers in these crops. 2004–2005 there may only be four large agro-
the nineties to closer to $20–30 million This regulatory situation also excludes the chemical companies left as Monsanto, DuPont
today, as the extent of regulatory studies was public sector from independently participat- (Wilmington, DE, USA), Dow (Indianapolis,
expanded and codified, especially for obtain- ing in agbiotechnology product develop- IN, USA) and BASF (Ludwigshafen,
ing international approvals for transgenic ment, especially for those opportunities that Germany), each with net sales in 2002 of less
traits (my estimates, for major markets). are important to developing nations, many of than $3 billion, seek to exploit the economies
Increasing regulatory costs are contri- which could well benefit from these new agri- of scale and scope currently afforded to Bayer
buting to a concentration of commercial cultural technologies. Escalation in regula- (Leverkusen, Germany) and Syngenta (Basel,
• Some nontransgenic specialty trait crops have been historically • The current lack of validated production control systems for
associated with reduced yield and unrealized profitability. contract-grown, high-value, low-volume crops (e.g.,
• The near-term technical inability of biotechnology/genomics to nutraceuticals and plant-made pharmaceuticals).
generate vastly differentiated quality traits in transgenic crops. • The unavailability of suitable commodity testing and measuring
• The uncertain regulatory environment associated with systems at the rigid specifications needed to verify the desired
© 2003 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology
that agbiotechnology startups with this try has been very successful in marketing its world of transgenic agriculture. Ongoing
growth potential are out there today. input-trait technologies to farmer-cus- developments in agriculture with nontrans-
tomers, including the provision of incentives genic crops have already encouraged compa-
Encouraging investment in to encourage the early utilization of these nies to develop the vertical integration,
agbiotechnology products upon their initial commercializa- contract growing and end-product orienta-
As most life science venture capitalists have tion. Such proactive marketing is now tion necessary to take advantage of the next
historically not deemed it worthwhile to required for the next generation of retail generation of transgenic crop products.
invest in building agbiotechnology practices, consumer-oriented agbiotechnology traits. Associated industry developments include
they consequently remain unfamiliar with the Realization of the first examples of any next the formation of Renessen (Chicago, IL,
evolving risk/reward profile afforded by new generation of consumer-oriented products USA), a joint venture between Monsanto and
opportunities in agriculture. Thus, given that might well benefit from the kind of private- Cargill (Minnetonka, MN, USA), aimed at
investors (and analysts) are probably not public sector collaboration that we are see- better leveraging each party’s capabilities to
tracking ongoing developments in this sector, ing today in the development of ‘golden rice’ address opportunities in transgenic output
they are not in any position to appropriately (a rice genetically engineered to produce ele- traits across the agriculture value chain. In the
value emerging agbiotechnology companies vated levels of β-carotene which, when con- same vein, DuPont and Bunge (White Plains,
or their products. What might happen to verted in the human body, combats vitamin NY, USA) recently formed a joint venture,
change the preconceptions such life science A deficiency). Alternatively, the next genera- Solae (Fort Wayne, IN, USA), in part to
investors have about agbiotechnology? tion of output traits might stem from the develop transgenic output traits for soybeans.
Consumer-assessment of agbiotechnol- application of nontransgenic gene knockout By vertically integrating under one corporate
ogy benefits. Within the next 10 years, technologies to generate products such as roof all of transgenic production, sourcing,
largely as a result of corporate and govern- allergen-free peanuts or decaffeinated coffee marketing and distribution, new ventures
ment investments today in genomics, we will beans devoid of the genes for caffeine such as Renessen and Solae seek to address
have a greater understanding of natural biosynthesis. The freedom of individual con- many of the infrastructure issues currently
product biochemistry in plants and we will sumers to transparently assess the benefits of compromising the widespread commercial-
be in a better position to manipulate plants more affordable and/or improved quality ization of transgenic output traits.
to exploit such pathways for the production products should act to develop a sustainable With the realization of these aforemen-
of improved nutraceutical and pharmaceuti- level of consumer-driven market demand for tioned developments an ever-increasing
cal products. However, marketing theory a next generation of products developed number of food companies may seek to
would suggest that the acceptance of such using agricultural biotechnologies. obtain the new generation of consumer-ori-
innovative technologies will require hands- Infrastructure developments. Improving ented products emanating from agbiotech-
on evaluation on the part of consumers who consumer acceptance of agbiotechnology nology. Given that many of the established
are fully aware of the transgenic nature of traits will draw an increasing number of com- players in the food industry have been hesi-
the products16. The agbiotechnology indus- modity food company players toward the tant to date to embrace agricultural biotech-
capture systems for output traits. Finally, maybe insightful and pioneering investors (National Center for Food & Agricultural Policy,
Washington, DC, 2002).
the eventual establishment of a workable should consider funding startups that have 9. Marra, M.C., Pardey, P.G. & Alston, J.M. The payoffs
European Union regulatory process should the fresh ideas and market maneuverability to transgenic field crops: an assessment of the evi-
provide an opportunity for the global com- to take up the challenge. dence. AgBioForum 5, 43–50 (2002).
10. Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe. Economic
mercialization of agbiotechnology traits impact of crop biotechnology (Issue Paper 5)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
across the significant remaining worldwide http://www.abeurope.info/images/files/abe_issues_paper_
The author would like to thank John Bedbrook, Mike 5.pdf (AgBiotech Europe, 2002).
row crop acreage that is not currently planted Lassner, Ken Moonie, Julie Geenty and Scott Thenell 11. Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe. The environ-
with transgenic crops (Fig. 1a). for their helpful comments and suggestions in mental impact of agricultural biotechnology (Issue
In the end, realizing a return on any invest- reviewing drafts of this publication. Paper 3) (AgBiotech Europe, 2002).
12. Carson, D.D. Agricultural chemicals report (Merrill
© 2003 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology
ment is all about delivering a product that 1. Gompers, P.A. & Lerner, J. The Money of Invention Lynch Research & Economics Group, New York, NY,
meets some unsatisfied customer need. No (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 2001). 2002).
matter what consumers might say in market 2. Weck, E. The transgenic plant market: profits from 13. Graff, G.D., Rausser, G.C. & Small, A.A. Agricultural
new products and novel drugs (Drug & market devel- biotechnology’s complementary intellectual assets.
surveys about GM foods, for example, their opment report no. 9070) (Westborough, MA, 2002). Rev. Econ. Stats. 85, 349–363 (2003).
actual behavior could be quite different if 3. Andersson, R. & Mynahan, R. The protein production 14. Brennan, M.F., Pray, C.E. & Courtmanche, A. in
challenge. In Vivo: The Business and Medicine Report Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and
they were given the opportunity to try out 5, 1–5 (2001). Policy, Ch. 8 (ed. Lesser, W.H.) 153–174 (Food
products that satisfy their needs16. Ironically, 4. McElroy, D. Moving agbiotech downstream. Nat. Marketing Policy Center, Storrs, CT, 2002).
many of the anti-GM consumer advocate Biotechnol. 17, 1071–1074 (1999). 15. Fulton, M. & Konstantinos, G. Agricultural biotechnol-
5. Myers, S.C. & Howe, C.D. A life-cycle financial model ogy and industry structure. AgBioForum 4, 137–151
groups that play lip service to the concept of of pharmaceutical R&D (MIT Program On the (2001).
‘consumer choice’ have done everything they Pharmaceutical Industry working paper no. 41-97) 16. Phillips, P.W.B. & Corkindale, D. Marketing GM foods:
can to ensure that consumers are denied an (MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, the way forward. AgBioForum 5, 113–121 (2003).
1997). 17. Graff, G.D. & Newcomb, J. Agricultural biotechnology
opportunity to evaluate the benefits of genet- 6. Demasi, J.A., Hansen, R.W. & Grabowski, H.G. The at the crossroads. (Bio-Era report) http://www.bio-
ically enhanced products. So someone is price of innovation: new estimates for drug develop- era.net/be_index.php (Bio Economic Research
ment costs. J. Health Economics 22, 151–185 Associates, Cambridge, MA, 2003).
going to have to take the lead and proactively (2003). 18. Plant Genetic Systems v. Dekalb Genetics Corp.,
market GM food products to get them into 7. Fischhoff, B. & Fischhoff, I. Publics’ opinions about 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 447 (Fed. Cir, Feb. 20,
the hands of retail consumers, despite the biotechnologies. AgBioForum 4, 155–162 (2001). 2003).
8. Gianessi, L.P., Silvers, C.S., Sanuka, S. & Carpenter, 19. Atkinson, R.C. et al. Public sector collaboration for
near-term conditions. If the established J.E. Plant biotechnology: current and potential impact agricultural IP management. Science 301, 174–175
industry players are not up to the task then for improving pest management in U.S. agriculture (2003).