|
|
China: Currently the world's leading importer of soybeans and soy products, and beyond doubt the US' best customer. This puts the US in a difficult position -- this is a customer of such magnitude that the customer can dictate terms to the seller. The alternative is to go back and try to appease the Europeans, who are content to pay massive premiums for non-GM commodities. The US is additionally vulnerable because China has not approved all US corn and soy events -- and China has shown itself willing to block US exports of unapproved corn.
Technology and regulation: The US is generally regarded as having the most reasonable regulations of GM crops. However, those regulations are very expensive, and satisfying them means delaying the release of a new product to the market. Other nations have hinted that they might introduce regulations that are more streamlined. This would entice multinationals to move operations overseas, but it could also position overseas technology providers with a means to compete against the multinationals. After all, the technology is getting cheaper all the time.
Food prices: In spite of what is said about preferences regarding GMOs, price is a significant element in purchasing decisions. When commodity and food prices are high enough, maintaining an anti-GMO policy will seem correspondingly less important and could eventually spur major changes in regulations. It is difficult to forecast when this point will be reached, and in what markets, but it should be watched closely.
Africa: No matter what Africa may have for soil and climate conditions, lack of infrastructure has been the continent's greatest failing (South Africa being the exception). With sovereign wealth funds from developed nations tying up vast tracts of Africa for production of food for citizens back home, significant investments in infrastructure can easily be foreseen -- and these investors, such as Saudi Arabia, will want to see these African investments pay off. Developing nations are ill equipped to go toe-to-toe with the Saudis, who will also decide which crops are planted, and where. Displacement of indigenous Africans is foreseeable, along with the possibility that the Saudis and others will be the main beneficiaries of recent efforts at improving germplasm for African conditions. The extent to which indigenous Africans will benefit from these developments is impossible to foresee, but much will hinge on whether Africans will be able to find significant employment with the foreign landlords. This latter is unlikely, as traditional stoop labor is certain to be displaced by mechanized farming. In addition, Africans will likely 'poach' food from the fields of foreign owners during the annual famine season.
NGOs: The rise of the international protest industry has meant great prosperity and professionalism for NGOs, who in turn have become politically and financially obligated to the governments, foundations and others who, essentially, employ them. The issues surrounding GMOs could dwindle into the background, much as the issues surrounding nuclear power have done. This would mean substantial realignment of the NGOs and their funding. This may happen more quickly, as a backlash against NGOs over the GMO issue, similar to the backlash against global warming alarmists in the wake of severely damaging 'Climategate' revelations. This could be triggered or exacerbated by outrageously high food prices, inability to source non-GM foods, or even an appreciation for Africa's need for modern germplasm and infrastructure.
Organic agriculture: Organic agriculture has positioned itself as the alternative to GMOs, and in the course of trying to take the position of being the alternative to modern agriculture generally, it has enacted for itself regulations and requirements of increasing strictness. The organic industry is as a result increasingly vulnerable to rising food prices, and if modern agriculture can regain the 'high ground' in the eyes of consumers and regulators/legislatures, the industry could wind up being the architect of its own demise. The industry has not allowed itself to consider any fallback positions and may have to face a running battle as a result. There are already major indications that consumers and regulators/legislators are becoming skeptical about the claims made for organic farming and food.
Multinationals: In spite of the woes suffered by the multinationals in the food manufacturing, feed compounding and consumer sectors, the multinationals have remained fixated first and foremost on competition among themselves. That is set shortly to change in a subtle but important way. The multinationals are rolling out products which are designed specifically for consumer benefit, and therefore will have to compete amongst themselves for consumer market share. The way into the consumer market starts with advertising, and the success or failure of advertising will decide what the public thinks about GMOs, and all the knock-on effects which can ensue.
|
|
|
|
