Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:34:18.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential adoption and management of insect-resistant potato in Peru, and implications for genetically engineered potato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2006

Jasper Buijs ,
Marianne Martinet ,
Felipe de Mendiburu  and
Marc Ghislain
Jasper Buijs
Affiliation:
International Potato Center (CIP), Apartado 1558, Lima 12, Peru
Marianne Martinet
Affiliation:
International Potato Center (CIP), Apartado 1558, Lima 12, Peru
Felipe de Mendiburu
Affiliation:
International Potato Center (CIP), Apartado 1558, Lima 12, Peru
Marc Ghislain
Affiliation:
International Potato Center (CIP), Apartado 1558, Lima 12, Peru

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper analyzes some important issues surrounding possible deployment of genetically engineered (GE) insect-resistant potato in Peru, based on a large farmer survey held in Peru in 2003. We found that the formal seed system plays a limited role compared with the informal seed system, especially for smallholder farmers. Although 97% of smallholder farmers would buy seed of an insect-resistant variety, a majority would buy it only once every 2 to 4 years. Survey data show that farmers would be willing to pay a premium of 50% on seed cost for insect resistant varieties. Paying price premiums of 25% to 50%, farmers would still increase their net income, assuming insect resistance is high and pesticide use will be strongly reduced. Of all farmers, 55% indicated preference for insect-resistant potato in varieties other than their current varieties. The survey indicates that smallholder farmers are interested to experiment with new varieties and have a positive perception of improved varieties. Based on these findings, and considering the difficulties implementing existing biosafety regulatory systems such as those in place in the U.S. and E.U., we propose to develop a variety-based segregation system to separate GE from conventionally bred potatoes. In such a system, which would embrace the spread of GE potatoes through informal seed systems, only a limited number of sterile varieties would be introduced that are easily distinguishable from conventional varieties.

Keywords

genetically engineered cropspotatosegregationvarietycosts and benefitsdeveloping countries
Type
Research Article
Information
Environmental Biosafety Research , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 179 - 188
Copyright
© ISBR, EDP Sciences, 2006

References

Betz FS, Hammond BG, Fuchs RL (2000) Safety and advantages of Bacillus thuringiensis-protected plants to control insect pests. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 32: 156–173
Birnbaum ZW, Sirken MG (1977) Effects of nonresponse. In Cochran WG, Sampling Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p 359
Celis C, Scurrah M, Cowgill S, Chumbiauca S, Green J, Franco J, Main G, Kiezebrink D, Visser RGF, Atkinson HJ (2004) Environmental biosafety and transgenic potato in a centre of diversity for this crop. Nature 432: 222–225 CrossRef
Cohen JI, Paarlberg R (2002) Explaining restricted approval and availability of GM crops in developing countries. AgBiotechNet, Vol. 4, ABN 097
Cole DC, Carpio F, Julian JA, Leon N (1998) Health impacts of pesticide use in Carchi farm populations. In Crissman CC, Antle JM, Capalbo SM, eds, Economic, environmental, and health tradeoffs in agriculture: pesticides and the sustainability of Andean potato production, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts, USA, pp 209–230
Falconi CA (1996) Funding agricultural biotechnology in Peru: A profitable investment. In Turning priorities into feasible programs: Proc. of a policy seminar on agricultural biotechnology for Latin America, Peru, 6–10 October, 1996, pp 114–122
Ghislain M, Bonierbale M, Nelson R (1999) Gene technology for potato in developing countries. In Hohn T, Leisinger KM, eds, Biotechnology of food crops in developing countries, Springer-Verlag, Vienna, pp 105–141
Ghislain M, Lagnaoui A, Walker T (2003) Fulfilling the promise of Bt potato in developing countries. J. New Seeds (USA) 5: 93–113 CrossRef
Huamán Z (1998) Collection, maintenance and evaluation of potato genetic resources. Plant Var. Seeds 11: 29–38
Kough J (2003) The safety of Bacillus thuringiensis for human consumption. J. New Seeds 5: 1–10 CrossRef
Lapan HE, Moschini G (2004) Innovation and trade with endogenous market failure: the case of genetically modified products. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 86: 634–648
McLean MA, Frederick RJ, Traynor PL, Cohen JI (2002) A conceptual framework for implementing biosafety: Linking policy, capacity, and regulation. ISNAR Briefing Paper 47
Pray CE, Huang J, Ruifa H, Rozelle Sc (2002) Five years of Bt cotton in China – the benefits continue. Plant J. 31: 423–430 CrossRef
Qaim M, Zilberman D (2003) Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science 299: 900–902 CrossRef
Salas AR, Spooner DM, Huamán Z, Torres Maita RV, Hoekstra R, Schüler K, Hijmans RJ (2001) Taxonomy and new collections of wild potato species in central and southern Peru in 1999. Am. J. Potato Res. 78: 197–207 CrossRef
Shelton AM, Zhao J-Z, Roush RT (2002) Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of transgenic plants. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 467: 845–881 CrossRef
Spooner DM, Salas AR, Huamán Z, Hijmans, RJ (1999) Wild potato collecting expedition to southern Peru (Departments of Apurímac, Arequipa, Cusco, Moquegua, Puno, Tacna) 1998: Taxonomy and genetic resources. Am. J. Potato Res. 76: 103–119
Thiele G (1998) Informal potato seed systems in the Andes: Why are they important and what should we do with them? World Dev. 27: 83–99
Weiss R (2000) EPA restricts gene-altered corn in response to concerns. Farmers must plant conventional 'refuges' to reduce threat of ecological damage. Press rel., Washington Post, Jan. 16, 2000