BLOOMINGTON, Ill. — Dr. Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, director of economics and management for the Agrobiotechnology Center and a professor of agribusiness strategy for the University of Missouri, doesn’t like delays, regulatory or otherwise.
Perhaps that’s why he insisted on being referred to as "Dr. Nic" during his address, "Time is Money: Delayed Trait Approval Costs," at the International Biotechnology Symposium in Bloomington on Aug. 31.
Though the shortening of Dr. Nic’s name is meant to be whimsical, the respected analyst and author of several articles on the economic and environmental impacts of biotechnology turns serious when it comes to the topic of price impacts from the adoption of biotech soybeans and genetically modified food products.
Potential economic impacts to the grower from delayed biotechnology innovation include increased glyphosate resistance in weeds, and gains in efficiency and yield, costing both producers and consumers in the end.
"We have all of these technologies hung up in the pipeline, sometimes for years," said Dr. Nic. "Farmers gain from biotech through reduced costs and increased yields and give back some of the gain to consumers in the form of reduced costs. But how much do we lose when the new efficiencies are not getting to our farmers in time?"
Specifically, his research shows delayed biotech trait approvals cost consumers and farmers billions. Timely introduction of new, herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties would generate approximately $40 billion in economic value across all soybean markets from 2015-25. The economic benefits would be nearly evenly split between the producer (56 percent) and consumer (44 percent).
If alternate paths are not taken allowing new tech to reach producers in the next 10 years, "half of the (producer’s) benefits – poof! – will dissipate because the products don’t make it to market on time. And all of the consumer gains will be gone," said Dr. Nic.
"A three-year delay can take $20 billion out of the hands of consumers. The losses are not always distributed equally to everyone, and in this case, the consumer pays the entire bill."
The economics professor used soybean biotech as a model for much of his presentation as a nod to the Illinois Soybean Assoc. (ISA), which sponsored the Symposium along with industry partners. Considering soybean technology advances and other biotech crops and multiple traits awaiting regulatory approval, "We are not talking about small money," said Dr. Nic.
"Time is money, and it certainly is real money in the context of bio-innovation."
The U.S. biotech approval process has grown to a five- to six-year turnover rate, he explained. "Pressure to regulatory agencies have slowed the process not just in the U.S. but across the world. USDA has no choice but to take a breath and address the issues the courts bring to them, and so forth."
Keynote speaker Pamela Ronald, director of the Laboratory for Crop Genetics Innovation at the University of California-Davis, followed up with a brief address. "Genetic engineering is important to meeting the greatest challenge of our time: nourishing a growing population without further destroying the environment," she said.
Daryl Cates, chair of the ISA, said the farmer-led organization is committed to the future of biotech traits as critical to producing sustainable, healthy and secure food for people all over the world.
"Biotech crops mean food security for many countries, and yet today’s biotechnology approval process is susceptible to international politics, making it volatile and inefficient. We need a global, cohesive, science-based regulatory system so farmers can produce more food and nations can enjoy food security," he explained.
