are here: Home
>> Biotechnology crops: An assessment
INDONESIA Biotechnology crops: An
by Clive James, ISAAA
13-March-2012 The Jakarta Post View
An important milestone was
reached last year, on Oct. 31, 2011. On that day, the United
Nations confirmed that the world’s population had reached
Among other implications, there was one stark conclusion;
a world already running short of many natural resources
would have to find ways to feed 7 billion people, with this
number likely to grow to 10 billion by the end of this century.
Can we feed the world of tomorrow? Conventional food production
technology alone is struggling to produce food in sufficient
quantities, while data from the World Bank shows that large
segments of the populations in developing countries are
below the poverty line and lack the resources to feed themselves
properly. In Indonesia, it is estimated that 13.3 percent
of the population — more than 30 million people — survive
below the poverty line, with millions more going hungry
on a frequent basis.
These two factors — limited food production and poverty
— require additional ways of feeding populations. This is
where biotechnology has a potentially significant role
Biotechnology offers additional ways of increasing world
food, feed and fiber supply. Since being first commercialized
in 1996, biotech crops have shown that they offer two important
advantages for developing nations, an increase in agriculture
output per hectare, and a decrease in food production costs.
Approximately 60 percent of this value is due to increased
tonnage, with the remaining 40 percent due to decreases
in production costs. Put another way, increased food production
from biotech crops is equivalent to an extra 276 million
tons of output for this 15-year period. Using conventional
agriculture technology alone would require an additional
91 million hectares of land to produce this same amount.
Political will is absolutely essential for the success
of biotech crops as well as their timely deregulation. The
experience of other countries, Brazil in particular, is
very relevant to Indonesia.
Brazil has successfully expedited the responsible and timely
deregulation of new biotech crop products, which has contributed
to the domestic food/feed needs of fast-growing population
as well as significant exports, particularly soybeans.
Since embracing biotechnology, Brazil is now ranked number
two in the world in biotech crop hectarage, with 30.3 million
hectares of land planted with biotech soy, maize and cotton.
Studies by PG Economics data show that the Brazilian economy
gained $4.6 billion in increased crop production revenues
during the period 2003 to 2010, with $1.2 billion of this
revenue being earned in 2010 alone.
As well as increased production, other benefits for Brazil
include decreased investments and applications of pesticides
and other crop protection measures.
Equally, if not more, significantly, Brazil’s crop/food
production capacity now means that it is now a major exporter
of key crop/food products — for example; Brazil now exports
soybeans, earning the country approximately $17 billion
in income annually.
This commitment to biotechnology on the part of Brazil
shows little sign of slowing. The country’s government approved
eight products in 2010 and a further six last year.
This is in stark contrast to other parts of the world,
such as the European Union, which approved only two biotech
crops in the last 15 years — MON 810, a Bt maize, and a
biotech potato named Amflora — grown in Germany and Sweden
So why is there this dramatic disparity between the adoptions
of biotechnology in different parts of the world? First,
there is a mistaken belief that biotech crops erode biodiversity
while the opposite is true.
This misconception has been a major sticking point for
a country like Indonesia where its rich biodiversity is
both a major national asset and a key element of the country’s
However, the fact is that biotechnology is actually a land
saving technology. If we review studies conducted during
the last 15 years, they clearly demonstrate that biotech
crops have increased yield per hectare and reduced the slash-and-burn
agriculture in tropical forests including the Amazon.
Indonesia’s rainforest is an important element in the world’s
biodiversity and, by optimizing productivity form existing
arable land, biotech crops can in fact protect biodiversity
by reducing the probability for slash and burn agriculture.
Biotech crops have also been criticized, for being unsafe
as food while a science based assessment clearly shows this
is not the case. It should be noted that it was scientists,
not critics of biotech crops, who insisted that rigorous
evaluation systems for the new biotech crops 16 years ago.
Reality is that biotechnology-based food products have
been tested for 16 years, and found to be as safe, or in
some cases safer than conventional crops.
However, it needs to be emphasized that appropriate regulation
that deliver deregulated products in a timely manner needs
to continue to ensure the ultimate protection of the end
user. Current biotech crops are focused on insect resistance
and herbicide tolerance. The overarching objective of testing
biotech crops is to safeguard both consumers and producers.
Critics of biotech crops have also mistakenly claimed that
farmers have been exploited by the developers of biotech
crops as a result of farmers planting the crops against
their better judgment.
Millions of farmers worldwide have made more than 100 million
conscious decisions to plant and replant biotech crops because
of one reason alone, because biotech crops deliver significant
and substantial benefits in 29 countries around the world.
Another important to note, and one frequently overlooked
during heated debates on the issue, is that biotechnology
is not advocated as a substitute for good and traditional
agricultural practices, such as rotations and effective
management of pests and weeds.
Farmers, biotech companies, national governments and other
stakeholders need to collaborate to ensure that biotech
crops can complement conventional technology which also
requires the implementation of good farming practices.
Biotech crops can be best characterized as a new, essential
and powerful tool in the toolbox to control pest weeds and
diseases as well as other constraints that must be overcome
in order to contribute to the important goal of global food
Finally, the critical question to be considered is whether
Indonesia can afford to ignore the enormous potential of
biotechnology. For example, biotechnology can offer a solution
for Indonesia’s dependency on imported maize. Indonesia
imports 1.5 million tons of maize each year and biotechnology
gives an opportunity to substitute the imported maize with
a domestic product that allows Indonesia to be less dependent
on other countries for sustenance.
In terms of the next steps, Indonesia needs to learn from
the experiences of other countries, in terms of how the
market for biotechnology-related products has been deregulated,
and how best practices have been created and adopted.
It also needs to consider how to promote a greater understanding
of biotechnology among consumers and the farming sector
in Indonesia, and to show farmers how products and practices
can be tested, before decision are made and legislation
The writer is founder and chair of the International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
SEARCA Biotechnology Information Center UPLB Campus 4031, Los Baños, Laguna, PHILIPPINES
Telephone +6349 536 2290 ext. 406 / 169 / 135
Fax +6349 536 4105
SEARCA BIC is one of the biotechnology information nodes of the International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications Global Knowledge
Center (ISAAA KC) and hosted by the Southeast Asian Regional Center
for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA). It was officially
established in 2000 to address the needs of the region for a highly
credible, sound and factual biotechnology information center in the
Southeast Asian region accessible to various stakeholders.