CHICAGO (Reuters) - Consumer pressure will not force North and South American farmers to abandon genetically modified crops but it could blight the development of a new generation promising many medical or nutritional benefits.
Five years after the first commercialized crop -- when the Flavr Savr tomato was engineered with the flick of a gene to keep longer -- genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have won acceptance from many farmers and endorsement by most scientists.
``I don't think there's any question of GMOs being here to stay,'' said Gerald Nelson, professor of agricultural economics at the University of Illinois and editor of ``GMOs in Agriculture: Economics and Politics,'' a 300-page survey of the issues published this year.
``The question is whether we get beyond the initial wave of products like Bt (pest resistant) cotton or corn. I wouldn't bet a whole lot of money on that happening real soon,'' he said.
Consumers in Europe and parts of Asia, angered by what they see as products being foisted upon them without their consent, remain unconvinced. They have pushed for more testing, regulation, labeling and segregating or total bans.
In the corporate sector even Monsanto, the company most loathed by biotech opponents, has now acknowledged a public relations disaster and pledged to turn over a new leaf.
``There's a significant risk that the industry could still lose the credibility battle,'' said Edward Groth, senior scientist at Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports and a leading consumer group in the United States.
``We are sort of at the same point with GMO crops that we were with pesticides 50 years ago. They were going to solve all the farmers' problems and pests were going to be a thing of the past.''
The European Union, which froze the approval of new GMOs three years ago, has tried to placate critics by proposing rules to label foods in which they make up more than one percent.
The United States says this is impractical. Critics say it is too lenient.
Brazil, on the verge of approving GMO soybeans, has delayed again. Japan and South Korea's ``zero tolerance'' for StarLink corn -- a genetically-modified grain which prompted widespread food recalls in the United States because of fears of allergic reactions in some people -- has reduced sales of U.S. corn to those top buyers in the past year.
In the food industry, the consumer is king. So the vocal protests from consumer groups have prompted costly food recalls and a tangle of trade and intellectual property disputes.
Despite the storm, GMO use has not actually stalled.
In 2001, plantings of GMO corn in the United States accounted for 24 percent of all corn acreage against 25 percent a year earlier. GMO soybean acreage rose to 63 percent from 54 percent and GMO cotton acreage rose to 64 percent from 61 percent.
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) estimates that GMO plantings globally in 2001 would reach 50 million hectares (124 million acres), up 10 percent from the previous year.
``Despite the ongoing debate about GMO crops, particularly in countries of the European Union, millions of large and small farmers in both industrial and developing countries continue to increase their plantings of GMO crops,'' ISAAA said.
The reason for the success of GMOs is economic.
GMO soybean growers in the U.S. claim savings of $5 to $20 per acre (0.447 hectares) from reduced fuel and herbicide costs. U.S. cotton growers report better yields and lower pesticide use from Bt cotton, which contains an insect-resistant soil bacterium.
Such lessons are not lost on the developing world.
``It is now widely recognized that we are at a post-Green Revolution standstill and that yield ceilings of the main food crops have already been reached in conventional breeding programs,'' Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, said in May.
``We must look to genetic engineering to help to move beyond these plateaux.''
GMO research is advanced on canola, sweetcorn, raspberries, citrus and other crops that have an impact on rich consumers.
But analysts say opportunities abound for researchers to score a victory by concentrating on the problems of developing countries. Some work is being done, with notable advances in GMO plants that have thrived in salty or low-nutrient soils.
But many high-impact solutions, such as controlling the striga weed that cuts corn yields by half in southern Africa, still await GMOs, they say.
``The biotech industry made a mistake in trying to market itself as fighting world hunger and then not delivering,'' said Nelson of the University of Illinois.
Monsanto, the holder of patents for GMO corn, soybeans and cotton, has backed up its pledge to use its expertise for the hungry in the developing world after critics demonized it as the greedy, mad scientist of the new millennium.
As the GMO standard bearer, Monsanto in August 2000 released its rice genome research to the public domain as a sign of its new open stance, swallowing significant expenses.
It has also pledged to drop the development of a ''terminator'' gene that aimed to block plants from producing next-generation seed that farmers could use without a fee.
Monsanto is now working on producing ``golden'' rice in Asia and special mustard seed in India, both modified to include Vitamin A; virus-resistant potatoes in Mexico and Kenya; virus resistant papaya in Hawaii and southeast Asia.
``The companies are struggling like mad...to solve a developing country food problem,'' said Bruce Chassy, associate director of the biotechnology center at the University of Illinois. ``But you're stuck in a seven to 10-year development cycle. And none of the countries want to make a major blunder.''
The other key to acceptance of GMOs lies with the consumer.
GMO technology in modern medicine is rarely questioned by the consumer, where benefits are clear. Food is another matter.
GMOs have so far been sold mainly as a benefit for farming or food processing, which urban consumers care little about.
``That emphasizes the need for crops and new foods that clearly do benefit consumers,'' said Groth.
That is exactly what is targeted by the ``second generation'' of GMO crops now on the drawing board, with work on everything from cancer cures to snacks that reduce cholesterol levels.
``How about an oil with a omega-3 fatty acid, so that if you don't like fish you can still get a omega-3 fatty acid?'' said Chassy.
``Soybean oil with the composition of olive oil? There are dozens of things being worked on. Tomatoes, potatoes, squash, coffee beans. Clearly, many are agronomic traits, because that is what is needed in the developing world. But others are clearly what consumers will want to buy.''