Silver Jubilee Issue - Agrow · Silver Jubilee Issue. Contents. Editor's note and an informal ....

Silver Jubilee Issue

Contents

Editor's note and an informal

introduction to the Agrow team ....II-III

A look back at 25 years of Agrow

– by Andy Beer ................................. IV-VI

Thirty years of herbicide discovery:

surveying the past and

contemplating the future

– by Dr B Clifford Gerwick

(Dow AgroSciences) ........................VII-IX

Crop protection chemistry:

challenges and opportunities in

the 21st century – by Dr Andrew

Plant (Syngenta) ............................. XI-XV

Crop enhancement: developing anti-

stress technologies for crops as a new

focus – by Dr Michael Schade (Syngenta)

XVII-XX

Patents and the crop protection

industry – should future

developments reflect those of

the past? – by Noel Akers (N J Akers

& Co) ............................................. XXI-XXII

GM crops remain essential for future

food security – by Alan Bullion (Informa

Agra) .........................................XXIV-XXVI

Sanjiv Rana – Editor in Chief Long ago, I worked in the agrochemical industry, didn't quite like sales, loved writing, became a journalist intending never to go back. I am now the editor of a global publication on the same industry. Ironic? Maybe? I entered a new decade in life and realised that there were quite a few mountains left to climb. I acquired skills in Scotland and Wales and have made some conquests in the Alps. Final target – an 8,000 m peak in the Himalayas. An Indian who never climbed while there came to the UK and set his sights on conquering peaks in India. Ironic? C’est la vie!

Andy Beer – Deputy EditorI am alarmed to discover that I am a decade older than the US EPA and Roundup, which both came into being in 1970. I have spent most of my working life at Agrow, apart from a stint at a UK agrochemical firm. After years of global cycling holidays, I now tend to opt for more leisurely trips on my small cabin cruiser. But much of my spare time is spent helping to train a group of under-16 kayakers. As of this month, I am proud to have a couple of national sprint champions in my group, so they will be even harder to keep up with!

Robert Birkett – ReporterI switched from covering the London equities market to cover the Latin American markets for Agrow in 2006. The swap meant avoiding the destruction of the global financial meltdown, to ride a new world boom: agriculture. Film and football are my passions, but injuries have recently curtailed my playing time. New pursuits include mountain hiking. I have recently traversed areas of Snowdonia and the Basque side of the Pyrenees. Next target – the wild peaks of the Spanish Pyrenees and Cantabrian Mountains.

Hazel Blake – Reporter; Editor ( Plant Biotech)I have been working in the area of green biotechnology for the ten years – writing about it for most of that time. Before joining Informa, I worked for biotech spin-out companies at the University of Sussex, and as a patent analyst. I am wholeheartedly in favour of GM crops and my wish list would include a (probably GM) turfgrass that withstands our unpredictable English summers and saves me mowing it so often.

Leila Nabih - Editor (Agrow Intelligence)Younger, I wanted to win the Nobel Prize with an invention that would help preserve the environment. Needless to say, that hasn’t happened. At least not yet. I love to occasionally lose my research focus for the benefit of my camera lens, capturing beautiful landscapes, flamboyant cities and people of different cultures with the enthusiasm of a child, gasping for air at each new discovery.

II www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010

Silver Jubilee Agrow

Editor in Chief's NoteI feel honoured and a bit overawed at being the editor of Agrow as it turns 25. When asked about my opinion about the publication during my interview, I answered that it looked old and dated, even though the editorial content was excellent. Fortunately, my future boss felt the same. Agrow was 22 at the time and looked exactly the same as it did the day it was born in 1985. I was brought in as a change agent.

Settling down in my job was easy – I had a deputy editor, Andy Beer, who has been around for almost as long as Agrow and embodies everything Agrow stands for. I also had the previous editor, Jackie Bird, working as a freelancer. I could very well have slept on the job and Agrow would have anyway been published. I continued splashing colour all over the grey newsletter. But I also realised that Agrow wasn't really in need for much basic change as it has always been imperceptibly evolving with the industry. Its high retention figures in a quarter of a century of existence are proof of the fact that it is, in fact, in tune with the readers. I just needed to ensure that our coverage continued to be incisive and global and we carried on expanding our value proposition to readers. Agrow's excellent editorial team took care of the rest.

Agrow has provided continuity in an industry which has evolved beyond recognition – something Andy has put forth quite eloquently in his article. We invited industry leaders to help us chart out a direction for the future of the industry and we have many luminaries doing exactly the same in the following pages. What was pleasantly surprising was that all of them are good writers in addition to being industry insiders.

Here's to continuity with change.

A brief insight into the Agrow team and what makes each person tick. . .

Jackie Bird – ContributorI’ve been writing for Agrow for 14 years, and it sometimes seems that the trials and tribulations of EU Directive 91/414 have been a constant companion for most of my working life. In 2007, after 11 years as Agrow’s editor, I moved to the Lake District in north-west England and am now an Agrow freelancer. When not immersed in the finer details of EU legislation, I can be found competing in orienteering races. This means I do a lot of running around wild countryside in even wilder weather, but not always in the correct direction. I must stress that I am never lost – just temporarily unsure of my exact location.

Duncan Poupard – ContributorI have been with Agrow for only two short years, and in that time have undergone a crash course in the Chinese agrochemical market, and learned all about the highs and lows of industry journalism in China. After eight years of travelling back and forth between China and the UK, and a postgraduate degree in Chinese, I finally settled down in the Middle Kingdom. I firmly consider myself to be half Chinese, in spirit at least, and work on translations of classic Chinese literature in my spare time.

Robin Baker – Advertising ManagerLooking smug by my four-burner barbecue that my son (living in Australia) tells me every real man should have! I live in the country and very much enjoy country pursuits, which include shooting and fishing. I have been with the advertising side of Agrow off and on since 1991. I have been involved in publishing/advertising since I left school and have worked across many sectors, but find the crop protection market the most genial.

Yoram Stone – New subscription salesMy experience in the sector has been solely with Agrow, which means I have been trained the best; or so our subscribers tell me. Previously I have had stints in the finance and enterprise feedback sectors. I spend my time exploring the various attractions of London, of which there always seem to be more and more to discover. However I also love to escape the big smog and head out into the countryside, the Thames Valley being a big favourite on those rare English sunny summer days.

Toby Webb – MarketingI have been working for Informa for 18 months. Having studied management at Loughborough University, I then worked in California as a soccer coach director. I went on to work for a property insurance company before joining Informa. A keen sportsman, I play semi-professional soccer in the UK. I enjoy golf, running and cycling and I am hoping to compete in the 2011 London marathon and the 3 peaks challenge later in 2010.

Natalia Kay – Agrow AwardsI am the Events Manager for a number of awards within Informa including the Agrow Awards. Much of my spare time is spent enjoying the outdoors with weekends in the Lake District with New Forest being a favourite. After many years of staying in hotels and cottages, I discovered a love for camping. I am also a keen runner and although have completed a half marathon, I am keen to do the London or New York marathon.

Kathy Askew – ProductionI have worked within publishing for twenty years, producing tiles from Melody Maker, New Statesman to Literary Review. I have been at Informa for six years and working within the Agrow team for three of these. In my spare time I like to horse ride in Richmond Park and travel regularly to Suffolk and East Sussex where I have family and friends. I enjoy holidaying in Africa where I stay, not in a hotel, but in a compound of very basic means. Its a humbling experience which is refreshing after the hectic life of London.

©Informa UK Ltd 2010 www.agrow.com III

Agrow Silver Jubilee

A look back at 25 years of AgrowAndy Beer

Veteran deputy editor Andy Beer looks back at some industry changes during Agrow’s 25-year history

On the day that I arrived at Agrow’s office in the mid-1980s, the computers were being delivered. I wrote my first news items with pen and paper. We had a telex machine to communicate with far-flung places. A quarter of a century later, technology has changed out of all recognition and the industry that I write about bears little resemblance to the one to which I was introduced.

When I attended CropLife America’s spring regulatory conference this year, there was a facility for questions to be asked via Twitter. I became stranded in the US because a volcanic eruption in Iceland closed UK airports for nearly two weeks. Armed with my laptop and hotel wi-fi connections, I was able to keep abreast of developments and continue working as if nothing had happened.

Before joining Agrow, I worked for a small UK agrochemical company, Pan Britannica Industries. It was acquired by Sumitomo Corporation in 1990. That was just one of many such transactions that Agrow has reported for an industry that has undergone massive consolidation. It is hard to believe that research and development was being undertaken by so many agrochemical companies in the UK back then. Many of the firms that operated in Agrow’s early days are long forgotten: Ciba-Geigy, Cyanamid, Elanco, FBC, ICI, Hoechst, May & Baker, Sandoz and Shell. But some of their products and staff live on in the industry today.

I do not intend to chart all the consolidation that has taken place in the past 25 years, but it is interesting to reflect on where some of those companies went. The German company, Schering, acquired FBC. Schering continued operating in the UK until its agrochemical business merged with that of its compatriot, Hoechst, to form the joint venture, AgrEvo. That was in 1993 when it was still considered somewhat revolutionary to make up a new name rather than just stick with a combination of the parents. The upper case “E” in mid-name was also regarded as very modern.

The May & Baker name disappeared in the late 1980s when it took on the identity of French parent company Rhône-Poulenc. The latter survived for another decade until merging with Hoechst and a new entity, Aventis, was formed, which absorbed AgrEvo. Bayer subsequently acquired Aventis CropScience in 2002 to form Bayer CropScience.

Cyanamid acquired Shell’s agrochemical business in 1994 and within a few months of the deal being completed, Cyanamid was itself the subject of a take-over bid by American Home Products. The latter retained Cyanamid until the end of the decade, when it sold the business to BASF.

ICI spun off its agrochemical and other specialty chemical businesses to form the radically named Zeneca in 1993. Ciba and Sandoz merged to form Novartis in 1996. By the end of the decade, the fashion for combining agrochemical and pharmaceutical firms was on the wane and AstraZeneca and Novartis each demerged their respective agrochemical operations to form Syngenta. It is the only agrochemical company still operating a major research operation in the UK today.

The Elanco name survived in the DowElanco joint venture, which was formed between Dow Chemical and Eli Lilly in 1989. Dow subsequently bought out Lilly’s stake in the venture in 1997 and Dow AgroSciences was formed. Rohm and Haas operated an independent agrochemical business for many of Agrow’s early years, but it was acquired by Dow in 2001.

Bayer and Ciba were the largest agrochemical companies in Agrow’s launch year of 1985, each with sales of around $2,000 million. Twenty-five years later, Bayer and Ciba’s descendent, Syngenta, still top the ranking, but their sales have each quadrupled to over $8,000 million. The list of companies has certainly been transformed. Six of the 11 companies that topped Agrow’s sales ranking in 1995 (Ciba, Zeneca, AgrEvo, Rhône-Poulenc, Cyanamid and Sandoz) no longer exist. The two companies now just outside the “big six”, Makhteshim-Agan Industries and Nufarm, had yet to make it into the top 20.

DuPont and Monsanto are among the few major companies whose names are the same now as they were in the first issue of Agrow. There were talks between the two firms over a possible merger in 1999, but DuPont went on to acquire seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred International instead. Monsanto was acquired by Pharmacia & Upjohn in 2000 for its pharmaceutical assets. The “new Monsanto” was spun off two years later as an entity wholly dedicated to agriculture. The close ties between agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals were severed. From then on, the important links were between agrochemicals and seed.

IV www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010


The development of Monsanto’s business over the past 25 years illustrates just how much the crop protection sector has changed over this period. For the first decade of Agrow’s existence, Monsanto was largely a one-product company, with its herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate), being successful chiefly as a non-selective burn-down treatment in minimum tillage systems. The development of genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant crops opened up a whole new market for the herbicide and transformed the sector. Such was the level of adoption of Roundup Ready soybeans in the US, that previously dominant soybean herbicides became niche products and competitors axed development programmes for new products.

The development of weed resistance to glyphosate ensured that other herbicides would still be needed and a new generation of GM crops is being developed with tolerance to a range of established products. The boom time for glyphosate came to a shuddering halt last year when massive over-supply by Chinese generic producers brought prices crashing down, particularly in the US. Monsanto reacted by ditching its 30-year-old policy of multiple brands for Roundup and switching to a generic model itself. Future profits for Monsanto depend not on Roundup, but on the company’s GM crops, with their expanding range of input and output traits.

But the honour of introducing the first GM crop to the market went not to Monsanto but to a California-based biotechnology company called Calgene. The company’s delayed-ripening Flavr Savr tomato was the first GM crop to be cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1994 and they went on sale that year. Unfortunately, the company was dogged by production problems, the product was dropped and Calgene was acquired by Monsanto. A processed version of the tomatoes was developed by Zeneca and introduced to UK supermarkets in 1996, but the paste was later withdrawn following pressure from anti-GMO activists.

The demise of GM tomatoes in the UK was to set the trend for European attitudes to GM crops. Fourteen years later, there are only a handful of GM crops approved in Europe and the market is minimal. By contrast, the adoption of GM crops in the US was astonishing by any standards. This year, 93% of the US soybean and upland cotton crops were planted with GM lines and 86% of the maize crop is GM. Global plantings of GM crops reached 134 million ha last year, with Brazil narrowly surpassing Argentina as the second-largest producer after the US.

Monsanto’s insect-resistant NewLeaf potatoes, which were approved in the US in 1995, also fell victim to the anti-GMO lobby, and processors and distributors chose not to market them. But other pest-resistant crops have fared much better. Bt cotton made up over 60% of the US crop last year, while the adoption rate in India approached 90%. Over 60% of the US maize crop contained a Bt gene last year. Crops are increasingly

being stacked with multiple Bt and herbicide tolerance genes, with Monsanto/Dow AgroSciences’ eight-gene stack, SmartStax maize, being introduced this year. Future combinations will include a range of other traits such as healthier oils, drought tolerance and enhanced nutrient uptake.

The world of crop protection has certainly been transformed over the past 25 years. When Agrow was launched, it had the subtitle of “World Agrochemical News”. In 1989, the subtitle was changed to “World Crop Protection News” to reflect coverage beyond chemical pesticides to include biopesticides and GM crops. It was a move followed by numerous industry associations and companies. For example, the US National Agricultural Chemicals Association became the American Crop Protection Association before its transition to CropLife America.

An increased focus on GM crops among the multinationals has been attributed to a decline in investment in R&D on conventional pesticides. A study by UK consultancy Phillips McDougall shows that the number of active ingredients

introduced in the 1980s and the 1990s changed little (126 and 123, respectively), but there was a decline to 85 new ais launched between 2000 and 2008.

The advent of combinatorial chemistry around 2000 led to the number of compounds being evaluated to arrive at one ai more than doubling to around 140,000. Meanwhile, the time between synthesis and launch rose by one-and-a-

half years in 1995 to nearly ten years in 2005/08. The average cost of research, development and registration for a new product rose from $152 million to $256 million over that period.

Regulatory developments have been a common thread running through Agrow’s coverage of the industry. The very first issue of Agrow outlined the timetable for the European Commission’s plans to reform and harmonise pesticide regulations. The dates laid out proved to be rather optimistic. The final harmonised agrochemical registration Directive (91/414) did not come into force until 1991 and the goal of re-registering all existing ais by 2003 was never going to be met. Controversial revisions to the EU regulatory regime have occupied Agrow in recent years, culminating in the publication last year of a new agrochemical registration Regulation (1107/2009) to replace Directive 91/414. Implementation details are still being hammered out ahead of the Regulation taking effect next June.

The early years of Agrow’s US regulatory coverage were dominated by efforts to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The 1988 passage of FIFRA ’88 set in place a mammoth re-registration programme, initially expected to run for nine years, that has yet to be fully completed. A decade of industry lobbying to overturn the hated Delaney clause ultimately led to the passage in 1996 of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which resulted in major

❝DuPont and Monsanto are among the few major

companies whose names are the same now as they were in

the first issue of Agrow❞

©Informa UK Ltd 2010 www.agrow.com V


changes to the way pesticides were regulated in the US. The FQPA established a ten-year pesticide tolerance reassessment process and the rolling programme of 15-year registration reviews that started last year.

The prospect of international regulatory harmonisation has long been reported through Agrow’s pages, but progress has been incredibly slow. Over recent years, companies have been able to submit dossiers for joint reviews of new ais by OECD member countries, but the practice is still far from commonplace.

Meanwhile, recent regulatory reforms in the US and the EU seem to emphasise differences rather than similarities in their approaches to pesticide regulation. Both regions are targeting endocrine disruption, but there is no common approach. The aggregate and cumulative risk assessments put in place in the US in 1996 have yet to be adopted in the EU, which is embarking on radical hazard-based assessments, much to the industry’s dismay.

The EU and the US have inevitably dominated Agrow’s news coverage over the past 25 years, but we have always prided ourselves on the breadth of our international focus. Agrow has always been staffed by a mixture of scientists and linguists to enable reporting on technical issues across the globe. In the

early years, linguistic expertise tended to be limited to French

and German, which certainly helped with European news, but

did little for our Latin American coverage.

Brazil was always being talked about as a growth market,

but it took a while for Agrow to find first Spanish and then

Portuguese speakers to report on the region. Robert Birkett

ensures that Agrow’s coverage of the region has never been

more thorough. The other growth area that was always being

cited was Asia, and especially China. Agrow addressed this by

recruiting an editor from India, Sanjiv Rana, who promptly set

about looking for a Mandarin speaker to cover China. Duncan

Poupard started reporting on the market from the UK in 2008

and now contributes from China. Agrow’s former editor, Jackie

Bird, who went freelance in 2007, ensures that EU regulatory

developments are still expertly covered.

Such continuity is important to Agrow. Some of the issues being

followed run for many years and institutional memory is vital to

ensure that the context of the news is understood. I was not there

from the very beginning, nor have I had an interrupted career at

Agrow, but I have been there for much of Agrow’s 25-year history.

VI www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010


Three decades of herbicide innovation have brought more than 130 new active ingredients,1 dramatic increases in the effectiveness and reliability of weed control in virtually all major agronomic crops, and the launch of glyphosate-tolerant transgenics, which changed everything. While the pace of innovation as measured by ai launches averaged ~5.5 ai/year during the 1980s and 1990s, it dropped to just ~2 new ai/year since that time (Figure 1). Even more foreboding is the precipitous decline in intellectual property generation as illustrated by granted US patents either for new composition of matter or other herbicide inventions. By shifting the value from the herbicide to the seed and simultaneously increasing the ease and efficacy of weed control, glyphosate tolerance in crops brought the perfect storm to herbicide discovery; not only was the bar higher, but getting over it was of less value. Yet extraordinary innovations in new ai discovery have occurred during the last 30 years and many represent the foundation of weed control in non-transgenic crops today. Further, weed resistance and weed shifts suggest the reliance on glyphosate alone for weed control in transgenic crops is coming to an end.2

No group of herbicides has made a broader impact over the last 30 years in terms of diversity of chemistry and crop applications than those that inhibit acetolactate synthase (ALS), the first enzyme in the committed biosynthesis of branched chain amino acids. Over 50 ais have been developed by 18 different companies (a number of which have subsequently merged) during this period, with registrations in >400 agricultural crop, forage, timber and ornamental species (Figure 2). Five different families of chemistry have been commercialised with this mode of action (MOA), including the sulfonylureas, imidazolinones, triazolopyrimidines, pyrimidyl(oxy)benzoates, and the sulfonylamino-triazolinones. Equally impressive is the

duration of chemical innovation that defines the group; the first members, chlorsulfuron and sulfometuron, were launched in 1982, yet new members have been steadily launched including, most recently, thiencarbazone-methyl.

Attributes characteristic of the group include low use rates (generally in the range of 10-50 g/ha for most members although the imidazolinones are used at somewhat higher

rates), phloem translocation and high reliability. Not only does the ALS MOA appear to be approachable with diverse chemistry, it is extraordinarily sensitive with respect to inhibiting plant growth. Yet subtle chemical modifications to the core structures in each of the five families have enabled different crop plants to metabolise and deactivate the herbicide and render crop safety. Crop safety has

also been enhanced by target site insensitivity through selection in whole plants (eg STS soybeans), or imparted to previously sensitive crops through selection at the tissue culture level (e.g. Clearfield corn) or through transgenic modification (eg Optimum GAT). Seeking to impart resistance in crops through genetic modification foreshadowed a growing problem of weed resistance; there are now over 100 species with resistance to one or more ALS herbicides.3 While ALS herbicides are the backbone of weed control in many non-transgenic crops today, weed resistance represents a significant challenge and opportunity for new chemistry and MOAs in the future.

Inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) results in the accumulation of porphyrins and the subsequent light induced peroxidation of membrane lipids in plants. As such, PPO herbicides are fast-acting foliar herbicides with little to no phloem translocation. While generally of limited effectiveness on perennial plants or larger grasses, a number of representatives are active on a broad spectrum of weeds and selective to a range of crops following pre-emergence application. For example, saflufenacil, a recently commercialised

Thirty years of herbicide discovery: surveying the past and

contemplating the futureDr B Clifford Gerwick, R&D Leader, Agrochemical and Urban Pest Discovery

Research, Dow AgroSciences

Dr Gerwick outlines the evolution of commercially important herbicidal chemistry classes and future prospects of herbicidal chemistries

❝while ALS herbicides are the backbone of weed control in many non-transgenic crops today, weed resistance represents a significant challenge and

opportunity for new chemistry and MOAs in the future❞

©Informa UK Ltd 2010 www.agrow.com VII


PPO inhibitor from the pyrimidinone family, has potential utility both as a non-selective burn-down herbicide when applied foliarly, and a crop-selective broadleaf herbicide when applied to the soil. Eighteen PPO herbicides have been commercialised since 1980, suggesting a major investment by the chemical industry in innovating in this chemical space. In fact, the 18 are representative of nine distinct chemical families.4 Many of the newer PPO herbicides are highly active with foliar application rates of 5-25 g/ha, with limited weed resistance. Only four species are currently recognised with resistance,3 which could reflect either the use pattern of PPO herbicides, a decreased propensity to select for resistance, or a combination thereof.

Acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) is an essential enzyme in fatty acid biosynthesis and elongation. Most plants have two forms of the enzyme that differ substantially; however, grasses have very similar forms of the enzyme in both the plastid and cytosol. This renders them sensitive to three families of chemistry – the aryloxyphenoxy propionates, cyclohexanediones and phenylpyrazolines. Although diclofop was the first member of this class and initially commercialised in 1975, 16 new members were commercialised in the subsequent three decades to provide selective grass control in grass and broadleaf crops. The newest member, pinoxaden, was commercialised in 2006 and represents the first of a new family of ACCase herbicides, the phenylpyrazolines.5 Innovations in the chemistry over this period increased activity levels and extended selectivity to additional crops such as rice, but also imparted phloem mobility. While diclofop is largely a contact herbicide, haloxyfop and many other representatives have sufficient phloem mobility to translocate to growing meristems of both annual and perennial plants and provide control. Resistance in grass weeds is now well known, with 38 species having been reported.3 Weed resistance results from a number of different mechanisms, but much is target site

based, which can result in cross resistance to all three families of herbicides.6

Herbicides that affect very long chain fatty acid (VLCFA) biosynthesis include the acetamides that were originally developed in the 1950s. However, innovations during the last few decades greatly enhanced

the activity level, spectrum and crop selectivity. Twelve compounds were developed since 1980 representative of six distinct chemical families; the most recently developed is pethoxamid, a member of the largest family, the chloracetamides. Inhibitors of VLCFA biosynthesis have been most effective on developing seedlings and therefore used as selective soil or rice paddy herbicides applied prior to weed seedling emergence. They are particularly effective on grasses and small-seeded dicots and have seen minimal resistance development; only four species

have been reported with resistance to date.3

While herbicides that affect VLCFA have been known for over five decades, auxinic herbicides date back a decade further

(1945) to the discovery and development of 2,4-D. Despite the length of use, the auxinic herbicides have proved rather robust with respect to resistance development. While 28 resistant species have been reported over the last 60+ years,3 relatively few have become widespread problems. Details of the molecular MOA of synthetic auxins have been recently elucidated; these herbicides bind in place of indole acetic acid to activate the degradation of gene repressor(s).7 The resultant unregulated gene expression gives rise to the unique epinastic phenotype

as well as ultimately cell and plant death. Among the six new auxinic herbicides developed since 1980, quinclorac represents a particularly unique innovation in that activity is strong on a number of grasses as well as broadleaves. The pyridine-based auxinic herbicides have strong phloem mobility and high potency, which has enabled control of deep-rooted perennial broadleaf weeds in range and pasture production.

VIII www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Num

ber

of Is

sued

U.S

. Pat

ents

Cum

ulative Num

ber of New

Herbicide a.i. Introductions

First glyphosate resistant crop introduction

YearAll herbicide U.S. Patents

Composition of matter U.S. Patents

New herbicide a.i. introductions (global, cumulative)

(~5.5/year)

(~2/year)

Herbicide Innovation: A 30 Year Look at U.S. Patents and New Active Ingredient Introductions1

Figure 1.

53

1816

13 12

6

19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

MOA

ALS

PPOACCase

HPPD

VLCFA

AuxinO ther

Number of New Herbicide Active Ingredients Introduced Within MOA Group (1980-2009)1

Tot

al

Figure 2.

Among the remaining new ais launched in this era are several with activity on phytoene desaturase, which disrupts carotenoid biosynthesis and results in photobleaching, inhibitors of microtubule assembly that affect weed seedling establishment, an auxin transport inhibitor that effectively synergises the activity of some auxin herbicides, and two inhibitors of glutamine synthetase. One of these, glufosinate, is particularly noteworthy given its importance to non-selective, post-emergent weed control. It also is used in-crop when coupled to resistance genes pat or bar. These transgenes provide crop resistance for selective weed control, but can also serve as selectable markers for the genetic modification of crops.

It seems clear that the near term future of herbicide discovery innovation is in enhancing the utility of existing chemistries and MOAs through further optimisation of commercially important attributes such as weed spectrum, crop safety and soil persistence. For example, the ALS herbicide, pyroxsulam, was launched in 2008 to control grass weeds in wheat, a major weed control challenge with relatively few highly efficacious solutions. New products from known chemical families and MOAs will continue to be launched with differential advantages, yet growing problems of weed resistance render these solutions incomplete. A second near-term innovation is the launch of products or deployment of genes that complement the use of glyphosate in transgenic crops (Table 1). Stacked herbicide tolerance traits will enable use of additional existing herbicides to extend the weed control spectrum of glyphosate and control glyphosate-resistant weeds. Similarly, new products or product mixtures have or will be launched to complement a glyphosate-based weed

control program such as SureStart (a mixture of acetochlor + clopyralid + flumetsulam) and Kixor (saflufenacil). Less certain is the timeline of the chemical industry to discover and develop new herbicide chemistries with new MOAs that rival or exceed the performance of current market standards. In fact,

a broad review of US, Japanese and PCT patent applications in 2009 revealed that while the total number of composition of matter applications for herbicides was only slightly lower than for fungicides and insecticides (Figure 3A), those applications that might represent a novel MOA were dramatically lower (Figure 3B).

While many herbicidal MOAs are known from natural products and elsewhere, few generate comparable efficacy, reliability and safety to non-target organisms and the environment as those of current products.

Glyphosate-tolerant crops taught the industry several lessons, including that there are no silver bullets. Weeds will develop resistance and shifts in response to selection pressure, new robust solutions will continually be needed and rewarded in the market place, and only by refocusing our efforts can we provide the new MOAs and weed control technologies that will most certainly be needed in the future. And if the trend in US

patent filings illustrated in Figure 1 can be considered a leading indicator of herbicide product innovation, we have no time to lose.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Gene Tisdell and Dr Terry Wright, Dow AgroSciences, for the information and analysis represented in Figure 3 and Table 1, respectively. Thanks also to Anne Gregg for research assistance, Risa Spinks for format and manuscript preparation, and to Dr Tom Sparks for helpful review.

1Cropnosis: www.cropnosis.com (Products with <$5M in annual sales excluded)2U.S. Farmers cope with Round-up resistant weeds. NY Times, May 3, 20103Herbicide Resistant Weeds: www.weedscience.com4Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC) poster: www.weedscience.com5Yang, X., Guschina, I., Hurst, S., Wood, S., Langford, M., Hawkes, T., Harwood, J. (2010) The action of herbicides on fatty acid biosynthesis and elongation in barley and cucumber. Pest Management Science 66(7): 794-800.

6Petit,C., Bay, G., Pernin, F., Délye, C. (2010) Prevalence of cross- or multiple resistance to the acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors fenoxaprop, clodinafop and pinoxaden in black-grass (Alopecurus myosuroides Huds.) in France. Pest Management Science 66(2): 168-177.7Dharmasiri, N., Dharmasiri, S., Estelle, M. (2005) The F-box protein TIR1 is an auxin receptor. Nature 435(7041): 441-445.

References

©Informa UK Ltd 2010 www.agrow.com IX


Company Crop Herbicide Likely NA Launch

DAS Corn 2,4-D/”fop" 2012/2013

Pioneer Corn ALS family 2016

Monsanto Corn Dicamba 2014/2015

Pioneer Soybean ALS family 2013

DAS Soybean 2,4-D/glufosinate 2013/2014

Monsanto Soybean Dicamba/glufosinate 2014/2015

MS Technologies / Bayer Soybean Isoxaflutole 2015

MS Technologies / Bayer Soybean Glufosinate/isoxaflutole 2015-2016

Syngenta Soybean Mesotrione 2016

Bayer Cotton Glufosinate 2011

Monsanto Cotton Dicamba/glufosinate 2014

DAS Cotton 2,4-D 2015

Outlook for Stacked HT Traits on Top of Glyphosate Resistance

Table 1.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Insecticide Herbicide

5751

78

Tota

l

A: Total Composition of Matter Applications

0123456789

1011

Insecticide Herbicide Fungicide

10

2

10

Tota

l

B: MOA Not Obvious from Chemistry Inspection

Analysis of 2009 U.S., Japanese and PCT Patent Applications

Figure 3.

Fungicide

ISO9001:2008 OHSAS18001:2007ISO14001:2004

The biggest Professional Manufacturer of Nicosulfuron in China 1000 Mt/a

AgroChemEX 2010, CCPIAOctober 20-22,2010,shanghaiBooth No.: 2T01

NicosulfuronA.I content up to 98%Specification: 98% TC, 97% TC, 95% TCFormulation: 75% WDG, 40g/L SC, 75% WPIntermediate: 2-amino-4,6-dimethoxy pyrimidine 99.5%

(CAS No.: 36315-01-2)2-aminosulfonyl-n,n-dimethylnicotinamide 98% ( CAS NO.112006-75-4)3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide 98% (CAS No.: 117671-01-9)

Other Products:Rimsulfuron , glyphosate, bispyribac sodiumImidacloprid, abamectin, acetamipridTebuconazole,, mancozeb,chlorothalonil

Website WWW. nabagro.com

Zibo NAB Agrochemicals Ltd. ChinaAdd: zibo City,shandong,P.R. of ChinaContact informationFor domestic market:: 0533-8409998Rebecca: [email protected]. Zhu Yanhui: [email protected] market: 0086-21-61435820, 61435818Ms. Mary : [email protected]. Jessica: [email protected]

NAB

X www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010

Crop protection chemistry: challenges and

opportunities in the 21st centuryDr Andrew Plant, Head of Research Chemistry, Syngenta

Dr Plant takes a detailed look at forces effecting change in the agrochemical industry and identifies sources for and future trends in R&D

Modern crop protection chemistry has come a long way since the inventions of the early 20th century such as DDT and the auxinic herbicides began to make their impact on agriculture and public health. We have witnessed huge advances in terms of falling application rates, increased potency and spectrum, as well as greater margins of safety to consumers and the environment. The economic benefits to growers and the provision of plentiful, high-quality and safe food to society are testimony to the ingenuity of the scientists at the forefront of new active ingredient invention. Given these achievements what challenges and opportunities remain for the agrochemist and for chemical crop protection?

Is the needle getting smaller, or the haystack bigger?Since the introduction of the first modern agrochemicals in the early decades of the last century, the conventional crop protection market has grown considerably and was valued at over $40 billion in 2008. However, the average rate of introduction of new ais dropped significantly during the period 2000-2008 (9.4) compared to 1990-1999 (12.6) and 1980-1989 (12.3). Was this just a blip, or does this reflect something more fundamental about the inventive capabilities or strategies of the research-based agrochemical companies?

To address this question, it is instructive to consider the changes that have occurred in the industry since the early 1990s. In 1992, there were at least 15 agrochemical companies in Europe and the US involved in new ai research, as well as several (mostly smaller) Japanese companies. A succession of mergers and acquisitions has led to considerable consolidation in the industry, leaving only six major players engaged in new ai research (Syngenta, Bayer, DuPont, BASF, Dow and Sumitomo) today. It is difficult to put a figure on the numbers of scientists working in new ai invention today compared to the early 1990s, but there are clearly fewer and certainly the diversity of corporate culture has reduced considerably.

So, is fewer people working in fewer companies the only reason for the apparent drop in the invention rate? As was alluded to earlier, the crop protection chemicals that have been introduced over the past half-century have generally become increasingly more effective, raising the bar for each new

generation of products. In addition, the regulatory drive for higher margins of safety has put increasing demands on the agrochemist in inventing ais with the profile to satisfy customers and regulatory authorities alike. Another important factor is economics. The costs required to bring an agrochemical to market have increased markedly over the past decade. UK consultancy Phillips McDougall estimates the average cost today to be around $256 million, an increase of $72 million compared to 2000. These increased R&D and registration costs require higher sales volumes and/or profitability to justify the investment.

Further consideration of the economics highlights the advantages of discovering and developing those ais that will ultimately achieve blockbuster status, through utility in numerous crops and regions and the ability to exploit synergies with other chemicals to further expand the product family. Thus it becomes clear that the actual number of new ais introduced to the market each year is not necessarily the best metric to judge a company’s performance. Rather, the commercial success of the individual ai and its associated product family is a better benchmark.

As well as the changes in the regulatory, financial and M&A arenas, the advent of biotechnology has also had an impact on crop protection chemistry. For example, the introduction of Roundup Ready technology by Monsanto in the mid-1990s introduced new standards of weed control in corn and soybeans, effectively marginalising certain selective herbicides in these markets. Similarly, genetically modified crops resistant to insect pests have made the market place more competitive for insecticide chemists. That said, biotechnology is proving to be a very useful addition to the armoury of crop protection methods and not a universal panacea – new ais are still very much in demand.

A number of factors will influence the demand for, and profile of, future crop protection chemicals.

Market fundamentalsThe world’s population is predicted to grow to around 9 billion by 2050, implying an additional 2 billion mouths to feed, mostly

©Informa UK Ltd 2010 www.agrow.com XI


in the developing world. Furthermore, as the developing world becomes richer, the demand for more meat and dairy products will increase. If we are to meet these challenges, then agriculture will have to become even more efficient than it currently is, effectively growing more with fewer resources, including land and water. This will not be possible without increasing crop yields and bringing marginal land into cultivation. Chemicals capable of protecting crops from insect pests, fungal diseases and weeds, as well as safeguarding yields under abiotic-stressed conditions will be a vital component of the farmer’s toolbox in achieving food security for the world.

Resistance to current productsDespite the use of integrated pest management programmes and the application of agrochemicals from different modes of action, resistance to insecticides, fungicides and even herbicides is inevitable over time. The agronomic relevance will vary on a case-by-case basis, but it is unquestionable that this will continue to be a major driver for new agrochemical discovery. The emergence of glyphosate resistance is a case in point where an excellent, but overused technology is no longer able to deliver the level of weed control that it once could, opening up opportunities for innovations. For this reason, new modes of action are highly sought after, but are notoriously difficult to come by, especially for herbicides. Resistance-breaking chemistry within known modes of action offers another, perhaps more tractable, opportunity.

BiotechnologyThe introduction of GM crops has undoubtedly brought clear benefits to the market place and offers the grower a complementary, and sometimes synergistic, technology alongside crop protection chemicals. The gene-chemical combination as exemplified by Monsanto’s Roundup Ready has set new standards for weed control and convenience for farmers in maize and soybeans. The introduction of GM crops has, in some instances, resulted in shifting populations of local flora and fauna, eg, the resurgence of certain sucking pests in Bt cotton, which creates new opportunities for chemical crop protection.

Regulatory landscapeThe requirement for manufacturers of older crop protection chemicals to submit additional data to regulatory authorities as part of a re-registration procedure is resulting in the removal of a significant number of ais from the marketplace. This is because some of these older chemicals no longer meet the regulatory standards of today or do not warrant the costly generation of new data for the commercial returns to be had in smaller markets. This process is causing growers, particularly of some minor crops, considerable concern as they increasingly find that there are no longer ais registered to address their needs. For research-based companies, this situation is, on the one hand, a blow when revenue streams are phased out but, on the other hand, a golden opportunity to invent and

commercialise the next generation of highly efficacious and even safer products and to revitalise their portfolios.

Of greater concern to the industry is the shift in regulatory philosophy from a risk-based assessment to one based on hazard alone. This approach has been spearheaded in Europe and is embodied in EU agrochemical registration Regulation (1107/2009). The full implications of this regulation within the EU are not yet clear, nor whether other regions such as North America, Asia Pacific, or Latin America, will follow suit. Potentially, the consequences for those involved in the invention of new ais will be increased attention to toxicological and environmental endpoints and indicators much earlier on in the R&D process and for more weightage to be given to these parameters rather than spectrum and potency. These considerations are thought provoking and already a topic of much debate within the industry.

GenericsGeneric products are currently more of a concern for those people working in product life cycle management within the research-based companies, than the scientists engaged in new ai invention. That said, the increasing costs to develop and register a new ai will lead each company to review its business model and R&D strategy. Generic competition will continue to act as a spur to invent improved, cost-effective crop protection chemicals and provide a premium product demonstrating commercial benefits to the grower.

New opportunitiesAbiotic stress, as exemplified by drought and salinity, will add to the current list of challenges and opportunities presented to the crop protection industry. Products that have so-called “crop enhancement” or “plant heath” effects, which induce better water management or nitrogen utilisation, for example, will offer further benefits for growers in terms of maximising and securing yields. As the genomics and proteomics underpinning such phenotypes are elucidated and screening capabilities are established, scientists will have even more parameters to play with in designing the agrochemistry of tomorrow!

The ideal active ingredientHaving considered the drivers for new crop protection chemistry, let us briefly review the desired attributes for the ideal ai:

Some of the points listed above can seem contradictory, such as the need for a certain amount of residual biological effect as well as fast degradation in the environment. The agrochemist’s dilemma is epitomised in such trade-offs and the challenge to meet the overall specification is daunting.

From the industrialist’s perspective, the ideal molecule will give the optimal balance between biological efficacy (or performance), “registerability” and the cost of goods.

XII www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010


Biologically efficient

Superior potency and spectrum•

Highly selective (pest/weed versus crop, beneficial •organisms, applicator, consumer)

Fast-acting•

Reliable and robust activity in the field •(eg not weather-dependent)

Optimal residual effect (eg one pass)•

No cross-resistance to existing ais; new mode-of-action•

Low risk of resistance development•

User-friendly

Favourable toxicological profile•

Good formulation characteristics (eg long storage •stability, flexible tank mixing partner)

Minimal, convenient and safe packaging•

Convenient application method •

Environmentally sound

Safe to applicators and consumers•

Low toxicity to non-target organisms•

Fast degradation in the environment•

No leaching to groundwater•

Low application rates•

Economically viable

Attractive cost-benefit ratio for the farmer•

Broad utility (flexible mixture partner)•

Applicability in ICM and IPM•

Intellectual property secured•

Cost-effective manufacturing•

Innovative product characteristics (eg crop enhancement)•

Competitive in the marketplace•

High profit margins for the manufacturer•

Registerability refelects the ability of the ai (or product) to obtain the broadest possible label and licence to sell in as many markets and regions as possible, as quickly as possible (eg reduced-risk pesticide registration in the US).

Invention streams for crop protection chemistrySo where does the agrochemist obtain his inspiration for ai invention? The potential sources of new lead structures for crop protection chemicals have remained more or less unchanged over the past few decades, even if the associated screening platforms have seen some notable changes, eg the advent of high-throughput in vivo and in vitro screening.

Natural productsNature has been a rich source of lead structures and ais from the earliest days of the modern crop protection industry.

Bioassay-guided fractionation of natural product extracts and de-novo synthesis inspired by natural products reported in scientific literature have had a significant commercial impact - in 2007, product sales that can be traced back to these origins exceeded $7 million (source: Phillips McDougall). Examples of molecules forming the basis of commercial successes today are the herbicide, phosphinothricin (marketed by Bayer as its ammonium salt, glufosinate), the insecticide, abamectin (a mixture of avermectin B1a and B1b; Syngenta) and the fungicide, azoxystrobin (Syngenta).

Cross-indication screeningCross-indication, or off-indication screening, is the practice of screening a chemical against a target for which it was not designed, eg testing a potential herbicide against insect pests. This approach has also unearthed new lead structures, perhaps sometimes unsurprisingly as important modes of action may be conserved across different organisms, eg the inhibition of plant and insect acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase). One recent example is the discovery of the “diamide” class of insecticides by Nihon Nohyaku, from which the ai, flubendiamide, was developed. The origins of this chemistry can be traced back to a herbicide discovery programme based on inhibitors of plant porphyrinogen IX oxidase (PPGO).

Diverse, targeted, or “adjacent” chemistryThis category is a catch-all for inputs to biological screens that are primarily based on chemical diversity or new synthetic methodology, including compounds sourced from non-life science firms (eg photographic industry), speciality vendors, universities and in-house chemistry not associated with lead optimisation projects. The main premise here was for companies to enrich their compound collections with novel structural types, using appropriate filters based on physico-chemical parameters to guide selection. Combinatorial chemistry, which was popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s, produced libraries of many thousands of compounds using new technology and led to a huge increase in screening capacity in the industry. The number of new products that have been identified with “combichem” suggest that this approach has enjoyed limited success.

A notable success originating from what I have termed “adjacent” chemistry is the world’s biggest selling agrochemical, glyphosate, the lead structure for which was identified by Monsanto from a programme aimed at identifying water softening agents. The fungicides, silthiopham (Monsanto) and famaxadone (DuPont), both have their origins in academic laboratories and the insecticide, pymetrozine (Syngenta), was discovered through a chemistry-driven project based on a flexible approach to the synthesis of novel heterocycles .

Structure- or mechanism-based designStructural information and biochemical knowledge on systems of relevance to the crop protection chemist is not (yet) as rich as in the pharmaceutical sector. However, where such useful

©Informa UK Ltd 2010 www.agrow.com XIII


information exists, eg in the form of an x-ray crystal structure of a (ligand-bound) target site, computational chemists and x-ray crystallographers work alongside synthetic chemists to design novel inhibitors. As far as this author is aware, there is no ai on the market that has been invented by this route, but the chances for success will undoubtedly increase in the future as advances in structural biology accelerate. Knowledge of the transition state in a chemical reaction belonging to a critical biochemical pathway can also be used to design inhibitors. Many “actives” have been identified but, again, this approach has yet to deliver a commercial product.

Competitor-inspired chemistryThis approach is also sometimes known as “patent-busting” or “me-too” chemistry and this is probably the most fertile invention stream. In this approach, a competitor patent application or publication provides a novel chemical structure with associated biological activity (usually) on agronomically-relevant organisms. The challenge is to invent something falling outside of any claims that will eventually be granted to the competitor, which is itself patentable (novel and inventive) and which is commercially interesting.

The company embarking on such a discovery programme will usually be at least 18 months behind the competitor in the race to the marketplace and will usually need to find a molecule that will give rise to a product (standalone ai or in mixture) with a real commercial advantage over the competitor offering. Although the innovation is often incremental, improvements in the performance, registerability or cost of goods (CoGs) can deliver a profitable product and offer the customer improved choice in the marketplace.

Biologically active chemistryThis category refers to lead structures or ais that have been (or could be) identified by screening compounds originating from the pharmaceutical or animal health industries. This approach reflects the fact that certain target organisms or their biochemical pathways are similar to those we are interested in and offer opportunities that complement the other invention streams mentioned above, eg parasiticides from the animal health industry and antibiotics from the pharmaceutical business. The demethylase inhibitor (DMI) triazole fungicides are an important class of crop protection agents that have their origin or inspiration in the pharmaceutical industry.

SerendipityAlthough it can’t be classed as an invention stream, serendipity has certainly played an important role in the discovery of agrochemicals. From the chemist’s perspective, serendipitous discoveries can result in several ways such as unexpected chemical reactions, the isolation of reaction by-products and even experimental error. These discoveries are, by their very nature, highly unpredictable and those molecules that have been discovered this way owe much to the observational

skills, enquiring minds and opportunism of the many talented scientists we have working in our industry. For example, the lead structure for the Syngenta fungicide, cyprodinil, was discovered during a hydrolysis study of a sulfonylurea herbicide.

Which factors influence chemical invention?As well as understanding the potential of different invention streams, a research-based organisation requires adequate resources and an organisational structure to meet the needs of its R&D strategy. Having state-of-the-art facilities contributes both to efficiency (eg automated multi-parallel synthesis) and capability (eg computational chemistry and x-ray crystallography), but recruiting, motivating and retaining high calibre staff is even more important and leads to greater impact on R&D outputs. Indeed, fostering talent, both in terms of leadership and scientific excellence and channelling this in the right direction, is a fundamental challenge for R&D managers.

Observations and conclusionsBased on an in-house analysis, we conclude that access to all invention streams is required to build and maintain a balanced and broad crop protection product portfolio. Our analysis also shows that once a company has prospected a new chemical “seam”, it usually pays dividends to keep “mining” as there is often more than one product in a new area (eg the herbicidal sulfonylureas from DuPont; the insecticidal tetronic/tetramic acids from Bayer; and the fungicidal succinate dehydrogenase inhibitors from Syngenta and others).

Being first to market in a new chemical series also does not guarantee market domination, as “fast-followers” can become the best in class, improving on the pioneer in the field, eg the sulfonylurea herbicides. New technologies can undoubtedly support productivity and innovative capability, but picking the winners is not always easy (cf combinatorial chemistry) and early adoption has its risks.

Continuing the theme of unpredictability, perhaps the single most elusive insight would be an understanding of what the next blockbuster molecule will be. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the commercial potential of many of today’s recognised blockbusters, such as mesotrione, azoxystrobin or imidacloprid, was not recognised or understood by the manufacturer at the time of market introduction. From a new ai portfolio management perspective, such an insight might be really useful...

Future trendsPopulation growth, dietary diversification and resistance to existing ais will ensure that the crop protection chemist has plenty to do in the coming decades. Biotechnology should be viewed as a potential partner, rather than a threat, and innovative solutions integrating chemistry and genetics will become more commonplace and may well act as a differentiator among those companies competing for market share. Chemistry that is not only “cidal”, but that also seeks

XIV www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010


to address the problems of abiotic stress, bringing the full potential of plants to life, will create value for the inventing companies and bring benefits to growers and, ultimately, society at large.

The food chain, non-governmental organisations and regulatory authorities are exercising increasing influence (based on the precautionary principle, rather than science-based risk assessment) over the products we are able to sell and our industry will need to adapt accordingly. We will need to develop better tools to correlate molecular structure with environmental fate and toxicity to non-target species, so that we can design crop protection chemistry with more confidence, improve the attrition rate, reduce R&D costs and get our products to the market earlier. To help meet these challenges, I believe the industry will need to become more outwardly focused and collaborative, harnessing the best brains from around the world.

As the economies of the developing world accelerate, countries such as India and China will become innovators and not only home to contract service organisations. I see a bright future for crop protection chemistry, one filled with big challenges and immense possibilities. The only thing I’m no longer sure about is the label we give ourselves - perhaps Plant Potential Chemistry is a more fitting moniker for the future...?

TAMINCO AGRO SCIENCES

HELPING YOU TO GROW...Taminco’s Agro Sciences division cares about plant health. We provide various solutions to serve the markets of foliar fungicides, soil fumigants, seed treatment, plant stimulants and growth regulators. At the same time we have a unique set of technologies for the formulation of crop protection products. We also offer neutralizing amines and formulation additives for the glyphosate and triazine herbicides market.

Taminco Agro Sciences focuses on development and innovation to keep pace with the ever increasing demands of the agricultural sector, well in balance with the strictest environmental regulations. Our success is based on long-term partnerships and product stewardship.

Find out how Taminco can help you GROW....

For more detailed information and for setting up an appointment:www.taminco.com/cropworld

OUR AGRO SCIENCES TEAM WELCOMES YOU DURING THE CROPWORLD IN TAMINCO’S HOSPITALITY SUITETHE VICTORIA SUITE AT THE CROWNE PLAZA DOCKLANDS HOTEL, LONDON, FROM NOVEMBER 1-3, 2010.

10-01190_Advertentie_AgrowMagB185xH128.indd 1 17-09-2010 14:26:03©Informa UK Ltd 2010 www.agrow.com XV


Meet us at Booth 3C176-3C177 AgroChemEx Shanghai, 20-22 Oct.2010

There is no doubt that innovation in agricultural research and technology will have to be one of the key contributors to feeding the world, and industry will have to carry a substantial part of that responsibility. The goal is clear: food production worldwide will have to double until 2050, which equals a 2% increase per year1, 2, 3, 4. This annual growth rate used to be typical throughout the 1970s-80s, when high-yielding varieties were introduced, and the use of mineral fertilizers and crop protection agents was intensified. Over the past 20 years, however, the pace of growth has slowed3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

In addition, climate change, shrinking resources (including water and phosphorus), and rising energy costs complicate the equation8, 9, 10. Finally, the huge increase in agricultural production must take place with the existing arable land without converting more natural habitats. The term “sustainable intensification” has been introduced to describe this process11, 12, 13. A more consistent use of good agricultural practices such as sensible crop protection measures, crop rotation, and perfect timing of sowing can yield sustainable results14, 15.

How can the agro industry contribute? Innovation in traditional agricultural R&D including crop protection will continue, and new, better products will find their way to the market. But we have already reached such a high level of pest, disease, and weed control in most of the key crops, that further improvements on this end will most probably be insufficient for the needed increase in global agricultural productivity.

The key point is that despite the use of modern agricultural technologies, our crops can normally not make use of their real yield potential. On a global average, less than half of the potential is being exploited. Abiotic stresses lie behind much of the crop loss. Drought, salinity, acidity, and lack of nutrients account for

more than two-thirds of these losses. Other important stressors that need to be addressed are low and high temperature, UV radiation, heavy metals and anaerobic soil conditions16, 17. As a consequence, almost all of the arable land is under sub-optimal conditions for plant growth, even in developed agricultures16.

It is as simple as that. Abiotic stress does not allow the genetic potential of the seeds to be realised. Climatic change may even worsen this critical situation: "Agriculture is the sector most affected by changes in climate patterns and will be increasingly vulnerable in the future,” said Alexander Müller, FAO assistant director general, to over 140 world experts in Rome for a workshop on “Adaptation Planning and Strategies”.

And although all of these correlations are known, way too little attention has so far been paid to the development of anti-stress technologies. The latest research demonstrates that traits as well as biological or chemical compounds can help the plant to better cope with stress and increase yield. This is the essence of Crop Enhancement (CE) as a new scope for agro industry (Figure 1). Current state

of the art suggests that a 3-20% increase in yield or input use efficiency should be achievable. Future technologies may be even more potent.

On the one hand, the seed industry will be a key contributor to CE by providing new varieties with improved stress tolerance. According to agro industry news, the breeder’s pipeline of biotech and novel traits for CE is currently primarily aiming at enhanced tolerance towards drought and salinity as well as at improved nitrogen use efficiency. The companies that are actively working on the field include Syngenta, DuPont, Bayer CropScience, Monsanto, BASF, EvoGene, Ceres, Mendel, Postech, Genomine, Arcadia Biosciences, FuturaGene and Performance Plants. The key crop focus is on maize, soybeans and cotton.

Crop enhancement: developing anti-stress technologies for crops as

a new focusDr Michael Schade, Global Technical Manager – Seed Care & Crop

Enhancement, Syngenta

Dr Schade stresses the mitigation of abiotic stresses as key to increasing agricultural productivity in a sustainable manner

❝the key point is that despite the use of modern agricultural

technologies, our crops can normally not make use of their

real yield potential❞

©Informa UK Ltd 2010 www.agrow.com XVII


On the other hand, agrochemical research and development will deliver new modes of action to interact with the plant’s stress defenses. In that context, CE can be defined as a specific, chemically induced physiological response of a crop that increases yield under abiotic stress and/or improves quality and/or maximises the use of resources, thereby growing more from less. It needs to be mentioned that the CE response may come from a chemical as well as from a biological stimulant, such as a bacterium or a fungus.

CE may soon become a substantial part of Integrated Plant Health Management, driven by agro industry R&D on the two areas, new seed varieties and chemicals/biologicals.

From the breeder’s perspective, the highest potential to increase yield will probably result from new traits. The level of success will largely depend on the implementation of technologies that accelerate breeding through improved genotyping and phenotyping procedures.

From the agrochemical perspective, a lot needs to be learned to build the expertise for efficient laboratory screening and field profiling of crop enhancers. We still lack a deeper understanding of early-season growth parameters and the corresponding physiological responses of plants, which will actually help us to select the right, lead active ingredients more efficiently. In this context, we talk about “surrogate parameters”, i.e. parameters that can be evaluated easily and early during the plant life cycle, and which would correlate with parameters that could otherwise only be assessed after harvest. Saying it the other way round: We simply cannot afford carrying trials until harvest! In addition, suitable surrogate parameters would drastically increase the speed of assessing the plant’s response to CE compounds under abiotic stresses.

To screen for chemical or biological crop enhancement compounds, we may need to more consistently adopt modern

technologies such as working with marker genes (eg drought stress) and evaluate a potential delay or acceleration by the chemical. Currently, the agro industry is investing in equipment to work on parameters such as photosynthesis efficiency (eg by using a pulse amplitude modulation fluorometer) and the plant’s energy balance. Substantial investments are needed because these are methodologies that go beyond the requirements to

screen for compounds such as fungicides and insecticides.

So how much do we know about crop enhancing agrochemicals today? Actually, there are already representatives of several categories of compounds available. For instance, the modulation of plant stress defense mechanisms as a side effect of insecticides and fungicides

has been described and is being exploited in many crops. The insecticidal seed treatment, Cruiser, is an example. Cruiser-treated plants respond with faster emergence, improved plant stands, increased root mass (Figure 2), thicker stems, earlier canopy

closure (suppressing weeds), grow taller, are greener plants, and have improved quality and higher yields, even in the absence of pest pressure (18, 19, 20).

The active ingredient in Cruiser and Actara (the brand family for foliar/soil applications) is thiamethoxam, which acts by genetic regulation in the plant, where some of the key genes affected are known to be linked to various stress defense mechanisms of the crop, among them quite unspecific ones like central enzymatic detoxification systems such as the

glutathion-S-transferases (GST) and the P450 complex. GSTs play a key role in the adaptation of plants to environmental stress. This is one of the explanations, why thiamethoxam-treated crops respond with increased tolerance towards drought, salinity, low pH (and in many soils the resulting high levels of available aluminum), and other stressors20, 21, 22, 23.

Thiamethoxam belongs to the chemical class of the neonicotinoids. Other active ingredients of the same class have

1

Abiotic stress is the main reason for yield losses in all crops!

Yiel

d

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Achievable Yield with CEGenetic

YieldPotential

Plant’s perfor-manceunder stress

STRESSESdrought, salinity,

frost, heat etc.

*

* Yield increase as a result of the CE effect.

❝the modulation of plant stress defense mechanisms as

a side effect of insecticides and fungicides is being exploited in

many crops❞

Figure 1. Illustration of the genetic yield potential, the actual yield and the yield increase that is achievable with Crop Enhancement (CE) technologies.

XVIII www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010


also been reported to increase the plant’s tolerance towards stresses. As an example, neonicotinoids can help the plant to better cope with heat and drought. In experiments described by Bayer CropScience, its neonicotinoid delayed the activity of drought stress marker genes and increased the level of photosynthesis (imidacloprid24, 25, 26, 27). Research findings also suggest that this chemical class can help the plant to better tolerate disease attack through triggering SAR (systemic acquired resistance) effects20,

25. However, the full spectrum of stresses mitigated by the use of neonicotinoids is not yet fully understood.

More insecticides and fungicides, including some that have been on the market for over a decade, are currently being examined from the CE angle, amongst them the strobilurins28. One of the representatives of this fungicidal group that has been reported to induce CE effects is azoxystrobin. Plants treated with this compound respond with a typical “greening effect”, which extends the productive period of crops and prevents premature senescence29.

Apart from these traditional crop protection active ingredients with CE side effects, dedicated crop enhancers are already available, PGRs (plant growth regulators) being the best explored compound class. In general, PGRs are derived from or designed to interact with the five recognised groups of natural “bio-regulators”: auxins, gibberellins, cytokinins, ethylene, and abscisic acid. As an example, Moddus (trinexapac-ethyl) triggers rooting and shooting effects in cereals and acts through increased stem strength, enhancing water use efficiency and reducing the risk of lodging. 1-MCP (1-methylcyclopropene) is the active ingredient in Invinsa, a PGR product that aims to protect crop yield during transitory periods of high temperature, mild-to-moderate drought and other crop stresses. When crops suffer from abiotic stress, they produce high levels of ethylene, which causes the plant to slow or shut down

its normal development, replacing it with efforts to cope with the stress. Thus, Invinsa can lead to less leaf degeneration during hot, dry periods and maintain a higher, more productive level of photosynthetic activity.

Until today, biological compounds have played a comparatively small role in crop protection. With CE as a new focus, this may change. Numerous researchers dedicate their efforts to a broad

range of bacteria, fungi and/or natural metabolites produced by micro-organisms. Among others, more robust and potent strains of Rhizobia, new specialised mycorrhizae, and several species of the huge genus of Bacillus as well as their close relatives are in the scope of recent CE research activities.

To push CE R&D forward, agro industry can pursue various approaches simultaneously.

Firstly, existing traits and compounds can be developed further to broaden their uses as crop enhancers. The activities will include crop protection compounds with CE side effects as well as PGRs. Secondly, dedicated crop enhancement technologies

such as novel PGRs and some of the known biologicals can be explored and exploited to make full use of their potential. Many compounds are known to have “some” effect, but we lack understanding on how to use them to optimise their CE features. Finally, screens for totally new CE leads will have to be established, which will aim at the physiological responses of plants

towards specific stresses and their combinations.

We are still at the beginning of this new venture and the examples given in this article can only provide a glimpse of the future opportunities in the field of CE. But they may serve to encourage agricultural researchers to invest more resources in the development of anti-stress technologies for our crops. Hopefully, this will be the beginning of a new “green revolution”.

Figure 2. Wheat responding to a Cruiser seed treatment by creating a bigger root system and altering the root/shoot ratio (treated roots to the left, untreated to the right).

❝until today, biological compounds have played a comparatively small role in crop protection. With CE as a new focus, this may

change❞

©Informa UK Ltd 2010 www.agrow.com XIX


1 H. Charles J. Godfray, John R. Beddington, Ian R. Crute, Lawrence Haddad, David Lawrence, James F. Muir, Jules Pretty, Sherman Robinson, Sandy M. Thomas, Camilla Toulmin. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science. 28 January 2010. 10.1126/science.1185383.2 FAOSTAT, http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx (2009).3 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009 (FAO, Rome, 2009).4 A. Evans. The Feeding of the Nine Billion: Global Food Security (Chatham House, London, 2009).5 Mann, C.C. (2008). ‘Our Good Earth: the future rests on the soil beneath our feet’, National Geographic, September 2008. 6 Feeding a world of 9 Billion – peopleandplanet.net7 CSIS Task Force on the Global Food Crisis (2008). A Call for a Strategic US Approach to the Global Food Crisis: A Report of the CSIS Task Force on the Global Food Crisis. Core Findings and Recommendations. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.8 J. Schmidhuber, F. N. Tubiello, Global food security under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 19703 (2007).9 G. C. Nelson et al., Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation (International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 2009).10 N. Stern, The Economics of Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007).11 J. Pretty, Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B Biol. Sci. 363, 447 (2008). 12 PRETTY J. N. The sustainable intensification of agriculture. Natural resources forum, 1997, vol. 21, no4, pp. 247-256 (1 p.3/4)13 Timothy G. Reeves, Director General, CIMMYT: Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture: http://www.cimmyt.cgiar.org/whatiscimmyt/SustInt.htm 14 Royal Society of London, Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture (Royal Society, London, 2009).15 P. R. Hobbs, K. Sayre, R. Gupta, The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable

agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B Biol. Sci. 363, 543 (2008).16 Plant Abiotic Stress. Matthew A. Jenks, Paul M. Hasegawa (Eds.) Blackwell Publishing 2007.17 http://www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/wsfs-forum/en/18 R. Senn, D. Hofer, T. Thieme, L. Zang, Larry; Neonicotinoid plant growth stimulators; PCT Int. Appl. WO 2001026468 (2001).19 J. C. Porras .Thiamethoxam: A new concept in vigor and productivity – Effect of CRUISER as a seed treatment (Bogotá, 2009)20 M. Schade, R. Klaveano, E. Cassidy, C. Grimm. The CRUISER® Vigor Effect – Field Proof and Scientific Explanation why this Syngenta Neonicotinoid is More than an Insecticide Seed Treatment. Proceedings of the 12th International Rapeseed Congress in Wuhan/China. (2007)21 P.R.C. Castro: Agroquímicos de controle hormonal na agricultura tropical: cafeeiro. In: CURSO DE ATUALIZAÇÃO EM CAFÉ, 7, 2007, Campinas. Anais. Campinas: Instituto Agronômico, 2007. 16 p., CD-ROM.22 P.R.C. Castro, A.M.C.M. Pitelli; L.E.P. Peres; P.H. Aramaki: Análise da atividade hormonal de tiametoxam através de biotestes. Revista de Agricultura, v. 83, p.208-213, 2008.23 D. Gazzoni: Os Hormônios Vegetais. In: Tiametoxam, uma revolução na agricultura brasileira, 1a Ed.Ed. Vozes, São Paulo, 2008.24 Insektenmittel bewahrt Pflanzen auch vor Stress, Wellnesskur für Pflanzen, www.research.bayer.de/ausgabe_18/18_Stress_Schutz.pdfx25 http://www.research.bayer.de/ausgabe_18/18_Stress_Schutz.pdfx26 http://www.bayercropscience.com/bcsweb/cropprotection.nsf/id/sf06_inno_bcs/$file/SF06_Thielert_Presentation.pdf27 http://www.grdc.com.au/director/events/researchupdates?item_id=C312423AB95C6C1949C57806A5092C4428 H. Köhle, K. Grossmann, G. Retzlaff and A. Akers , Physiologische Einflüsse des neuen Getredefungizides Juwel auf die Ertragsbildung. Gesunde Pflanze. 49 (1997), pp. 267–271.29 Brendan Dunne, Teagasc - Oak Parc, Crop Protection 2005, 23 April 2005, pp. 17-20.

References

XX www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010


Patents and the crop protection industry – should future developments

reflect those of the past?Noel Akers, Senior Partner, N J Akers & Co

Mr Akers traces the development of patent law in the crop protection industry and outlines future trends

Patent protection plays a significant role in many industries. The crop protection industry is no exception and is one in which the high cost of developing new and improved products and bringing them to market is only commercially viable with the security and exclusivity that patents provide. As a result, patents have been a mainstay of many agrochemical businesses for a significant number of years. The crop protection industry has played its part in the development of patent law and practice. However, many believe that further development of the law is required, in order to fully recognise the technical and regulatory hurdles that face the commercialisation of any new agrochemical product.

The term of protection afforded by a patent in the majority of jurisdictions is a maximum of 20 years from the date of filing the patent application, provided the requisite renewal fees are paid each year. For the vast majority of technical developments, 20 years is a sufficient term for a company to recover the costs of developing the new technology and profit from its innovation. Due to the high costs of product development and the complex regulatory path required before a new agrochemical product can be marketed, any crop protection company experiences a significant erosion of its patent term. In short, the length of time that exclusivity in respect of a newly marketed product can be enjoyed is greatly shortened in many cases. This is a feature that the agrochemical business shares, in large part, with the pharmaceutical industry.

For many years, there was no recognition in the patent law of the difficulties faced by innovators in the pharmaceutical and agrochemical industries. In Europe, the position changed in 1992 for the pharmaceutical industry with the introduction of a regulation of the European Council. It took a further four years for a corresponding regulation to be introduced to afford the same benefits to the agrochemical industry. The regulation operates to provide an extension of the protection afforded by a patent for a specified product, referred to as a supplementary

protection certificate or SPC. The extension period begins at the normal expiry date of the patent and may be obtained for up to five years. The length of the patent term extension is determined by the length of time taken to obtain the first marketing authorisation for the specified product in the EU.

The introduction to the regulation of 1996 sets out the basis on which the extension of patent term for crop protection is justified. In particular, the regulation acknowledges that patent protection is a key requirement to encourage and

promote innovation in the crop protection industry. The regulation further recognises that the regulatory procedure places an unfair burden on patentees in the agrochemical sector and that the length of time taken to obtain marketing authorisations for a new product leads to a lack of protection, which in turn penalises

plant protection research and impairs the competitiveness of the agrochemical sector. The 1996 regulation draws a clear parallel with the position of the pharmaceutical industry and states that equivalent protection is required for plant protection products.

Developments in the last 20 years have shown that legislators have recognised and addressed specific and significant problems faced by the agrochemical sector. In the 14 years since its introduction, many patents have been made the subject of SPCs, extending the term of patent protection they afford to specified crop protection products. The regulation appears straightforward, but involves many complexities, in turn often making the application for SPCs a very tactical operation, in order to secure the best protection for a given product. Many agrochemical companies enjoy very valuable extensions to their patent protection.

But what of the future? Problems still remain that place the agrochemical industry at a disadvantage in patent terms.

❝the introduction to the regulation of 1996 sets out the basis on which

the extension of patent term for crop protection is justified❞

©Informa UK Ltd 2010 www.agrow.com XXI


1 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products.[move refs to end of article]2 Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products.

❝the current inconsistent approach to the question of whether field

trials amount to patent infringement requires a very careful strategy to be applied when a company is looking

to launch a new product that is covered by a third party patent❞

3 DIRECTIVE 2004/27/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILof 31 March 20044 Monsanto v. Stauffer [1985] RPC 675 Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Kyoto Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

References

Perhaps the most significant is the issue of patent infringement and the experimental use exception.

The essence of the law is that, in general, the use of a patented invention for commercial purposes and gain should be preventable by the patent owner, while the patent is in force. As a result, patent laws define a range of acts that constitute patent infringement. However, patent laws also recognise that research and development should not be hindered by patents and should be allowed to be carried out. Indeed, in practice, many new and highly valuable inventions are made on the basis of existing patented technology. As a result, most patent laws provide that the conducting of experiments relating to the subject of a patented invention does not constitute infringement of the patent. A problem exists, however, in determining the scope of the experimental use exception.

A significant part of the regulatory procedure for crop protection products is the generation of data, typically by way of field trials. The conducting of field trials in relation to patented products raises the issue of whether it constitutes infringement of the relevant patents. As with the issue of patent term extensions, there is a parallel with the pharmaceutical industry. The marketing of a medicinal product requires the generation of clinical data, in order to obtain the requisite regulatory approval. In 2004, the European Parliament introduced a directive providing for an exception to patent infringement in the case of conducting the necessary studies and trials required to obtain regulatory approval of a medicinal product. As a result, pharmaceutical companies may carry out the experiments and trials necessary to generate data to support an application for marketing authorisation of a medicinal product, without infringing an existing patent covering the product. The provisions of the directive have been introduced into the national laws of the EU member states, albeit with somewhat different scopes in various countries. The experimental use exception is often referred to as the “Bolar provisions”, after the leading US case and the corresponding provisions in US patent law.

But what of the Bolar provisions for the agrochemical sector? By analogy with the issues facing the pharmaceutical industry, a similar exemption to patent infringement for field trials can

be envisaged. Indeed, a strong case for an analogous provision relating to plant protection products is made by many in the industry. However, as yet, no such general exemption from patent infringement exists. Rather, the issue of whether or not field trials conducted using a patented product or active ingredient amounts to patent infringement remains a matter of national law. In this respect, the laws of the various countries differ markedly in their approach.

In the UK, the Court of Appeal has held that, while the experimental use exception under English patent law can include experiments conducted for commercial purposes, the exception does not extend to field trials conducted using a

patented agrochemical to generate data for regulatory approval. The courts of other countries have taken a broader view. As a result, the experimental use exception provisions in Germany, Belgium and France are generally broader and permit field trials to be conducted, with the aim of producing data to support an application for marketing authorisation of a crop protection product. Indeed, in 1999, the Supreme Court in Japan

noted that to conclude otherwise would extend the term of a patent beyond the normal 20 years by the length of time required to conduct the field trials and complete the regulatory process.

The issue of field trials and patent infringement generally arises towards the end of the term of a patent, typically in the last year or few months before expiry. The current inconsistent approach to the question of whether field trials amount to patent infringement requires a very careful strategy to be applied when a company is looking to launch a new product that is covered by a third party patent. This represents a significant burden for many companies, with the only major beneficiaries being the lawyers! Patent law has developed in recent years to recognise specific issues arising in the commercial world of agrochemicals not shared generally with other industries. However, there is a strong case that further development is required, in particular to provide a level field with respect to the experimental use exception. There are no signs of an immediate change in the law in Europe. However, perhaps the future will see a change to reflect the position of medicinal products, as happened with the patent term extensions. Time will tell.

XXII www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010


With access to food supplies a vital issue, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, how to feed over 9 billion people worldwide by 2050 is bringing new scientific solutions to the fore.

To an increasing number of observers, genetically modified crops must form an essential part of the solution. "Biotechnology has been a remarkable success," says Dr Julian Little, chairman of the UK’s Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC). "Some 14 million farmers now grow GM crops over an area of 134 million ha in 25 different countries. From the prairie farmers who grow GM crops across 10,000 ha to the farmers who use this technology on less than one hectare, GM [technology] is a global reality and is used on average on areas of just less than 10 ha. Of those growing GM crops, about 90% are resource-poor farmers living and working in developing countries such as India, China and South Africa."

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), trait area or “virtual hectares” reached 180 million ha last year, up 14 million ha from 2008. Eight of the 11 countries planting crops with stacked traits were developing countries. With 21.4 million ha, Brazil overtook Argentina at 21.3 million ha as the second-largest grower of biotech crops globally.

The US remained by far the world's leading GM crop grower with 64 million ha. In contrast, six European countries planted 94,750 ha of biotech crops in 2009, down from seven countries and 107,719 ha in 2008, as Germany discontinued its planting. Spain planted 80% of all the Bt maize in the EU in 2009 and maintained its record adoption rate of 22% from the previous year.

Second waveThe ISAAA forecasts that GM crops will cover 200m ha by 2015, grown by 20 million farmers in 40 countries. The number of GM events is also set to rise. "While currently there are around 30 commercial GM events cultivated worldwide, by 2015 there could be over 120," says a Joint Research Centre report for the European Commission.

GM rice and the drought tolerance trait have been identified as the two most important drivers globally for future biotech crop

adoption. China's biosafety clearance of insect-resistant rice is likely to spur faster development of GM rice and similar crops in other developing countries. Meanwhile, drought-tolerant maize is expected to be deployed in the US in 2012 and sub-Saharan Africa by 2017.

Other key highlights marking the second wave of growth include the approval of Monsanto/Dow AgroSciences’ SmartStax, a novel biotech maize containing eight different genes for insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, and planting in the US and Canada of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans, the first product of a new class of technology that allows more efficient, precise gene insertion to directly impact yields.

The ISAAA also forecasts the adoption of golden rice containing Vitamin A by the Philippines in 2012 and Bangladesh and India before 2015. Other crops expected to be approved by 2015 include potatoes with pest and/or disease resistance, sugar cane with quality and agronomic traits, and disease-resistant bananas.

Wheat remains the last major staple crop without approved biotech traits. However, political interest is growing, given the current harvest problems in Russia and Pakistan. China could become the first country to approve biotech wheat in five years from now. Traits such as disease resistance are well advanced, while sprouting tolerance and enhanced quality traits are being field-tested.

According to Dr Mike Bushell, principal scientific advisor for Syngenta, marker-assisted breeding and new technologies are going to make far more impact across a whole range of different crop types. "Crops with increased yield, taste and nutrition, better, more durable disease resistance, nutrient water efficiency and better ability to withstand water and heat stress are a really critical area for innovation," he stresses.

EU approval processThe first transgenic plant - a tobacco plant resistant to an antibiotic - was created in 1983. It was another decade, however, before the first commercialisation of a GM plant in the US - a delayed-ripening tomato.

GM crops remain essential for future food securityAlan Bullion, Business Analyst, Informa Agra

The Informa Agra analyst makes a case for GM technology as a solution to the ever-increasing global demand for food


XXIV www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010

Since the approval for cultivation of Monsanto's MON810 maize to protect against the corn borer in Europe in 1998, the GM authorisation system in Europe has been painstakingly slow. In March, BASF got the green light for the production of its Amflora potato variety, which produces starch for industrial uses. However, the company spent 13 years guiding it through the EU testing and authorisation procedures, and it was still opposed in particular by Austria, France and Italy.

In the EU, 17 GM products still await approval for cultivation and 46 await authorisation to be used for food and feed, as well as to be imported and processed. BASF's Fortuna potato has been in field trials for four years now and the firm hopes to submit a dossier to gain approval for cultivation in the EU during 2011, according to BASF plant scientist Anja Klatt. "If everything went to plan, it could be approved by as early as 2014, but the EU process is notoriously slow."

EU consumer attitudesUndoubtedly the debate has moved on and there is a positive shift of political opinion seen in the Commission and some member states, with an evident north/south divide. "There is a more pragmatic attitude developing in Germany since the Merkel government took power, and we are seeing a similar situation with the UK and Netherlands coalition administrations. The situation is also broadly supportive in Scandinavia, especially Sweden. However, the mood is generally more hostile in southern Europe, particularly Greece. And France is noticeably less supportive under Sarkozy than it was earlier," ABC’s Dr Little told Agrow.

"Consumers also need informed labelling for GM and non-GM products, which, of course, the biotech industry is fully supportive of,” Dr Little added. He stressed that consumers are also becoming more favourable to output trait crops that offer perceived nutritional or climate change benefits, rather than input trait crops which are seen to benefit farmers more specifically.

This is supported by recent consumer opinion surveys from Italy and the UK, which show that public education, balanced information and improved labelling are crucial influences. The latest UK Food Standards Agency quarterly public attitudes tracker shows concern about GM foods almost at the bottom of the list of consumer worries at just 19%. That compares with 44% for the amount of salt in food, 41% for the amount of fat in food and 38% for the amount of sugar or saturated fat in food. Significantly, consumers under 35 were noticeably less concerned about GM foods than those in the 36-65 age bracket. In particular, just 7% of those aged 16-25 expressed concern about GM foods, compared with 26% for those aged between 56 and 65.

In Italy, an academic report demonstrated increased consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced GM food offering specific trait-based benefits. The results suggested that on average,

consumer acceptance for GM products was higher last year than in 2005. It concluded that accurate information about GM products was crucial in opinion formation, given the role that disinformation plays in raising consumer levels of fear and perceived risk. One particularly important recommendation was for scientists to contribute more frequently to public debates over GM foods.

ApprovalsAt first glance, it seems the Commission is adopting a more liberal stance on regulating GM crops. After years of political stalemate, both the Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, and the new EU commissioner for health and consumer policy, John Dalli, appear to want a more progressive policy for GM crops.

Last year, Mr Barroso said it should be possible to combine a community authorisation system, based on science, with the freedom of EU member states to decide whether or not they wish to cultivate GM crops in their territory. In mid-July, Mr Dalli unveiled a twin-track approach involving an immediate relaxation of co-existence guidelines, allowing member states to take tough new steps in order to isolate biotech cultivation from other systems and effectively to keep GM crops off their territory.

The second part of the package comes in the form of proposals to amend the EU's core legislation on GMO authorisations - Directive 2001/18 - by allowing member states to put in place a more permanent moratorium on cultivation of specific crop varieties or GM crops as a whole. The Commission said that the proposal would be discussed initially by EU agriculture ministers in September and subsequently by environment ministers.

The legislative side of the package would require adoption by Council and Parliament before becoming law. The new co-existence guidelines come into immediate effect, and could be invoked by member states looking for a quick and reliable route to outlawing GM crop cultivation. "Member states could now reconsider their safeguard measures on GM [crop] cultivation, when there is no scientific justification, and rather use the more flexible recommendation on co-existence adopted to avoid unintended GM[O] presence in other crops," the Commission explained.

Some observers have interpreted the proposals as a setback for wider GM crop authorisation. "The decision appears to be at odds with one of the key goals of the EU - that of being a free market without border controls between its member states. The proposed amendments to GMO policy will lead to a segregation policy with pro-GM[O] and anti-GM[O] states taking sides," says Eoin Lettice, an environmental lecturer with University College, Cork (Ireland).

There is no real financial opportunity for biotech seed and variety development in the EU when the regulatory process is “complex, politically driven and stalling”, says Luke Gibbs, UK head of public affairs for Syngenta.

continued on page XXVI . . .

©Informa UK Ltd 2010 www.agrow.com XXV


“We need to consider the risks and benefits of embracing agricultural biotechnology and decide if our growers can use biotechnology alongside other integrated crop protection solutions," he adds. Mr Gibbs warns that failing to realise the potential of technologies such as GM crops in food production poses a serious risk of global food shortage, escalating prices, and crises in many parts of the world.

So European policy still remains unclear, but the clock is ticking, as the food security debate intensifies. "It's not a choice between organics and genetic modification. It's a choice between feeding the world through chemistry or biology," concludes Professor Giles Oldroyd, deputy director of the John Innes Research Centre at the University of East Anglia (UK).

BUYER’S GUIDE

CONSULTANCIES

APCAPC provide scienti�c and regulatory consultancy expertise covering all dossier sections. Our network of consultants means local support is available in over 40 countries.www.apc.eu.com

Compliance Services International (CSI)Since 1988, Compliance Services International (CSI) has been specialising in regulatory and scienti�c consultation to the crop protection and allied industries. CSI’s services include agrochemical, biocide and chemical registration (including under REACH), hazard assessment (including QSAR and GHS CLP), exposure assessment (including modelling), risk assessment (including for endangered species), contract research management, data compensation evaluations, and regulatory due diligence. www.complianceservices.com [email protected]

EBRCEBRC provides full regulatory support for plant protection products, biocides and also industrial chemicals under REACH. Assistance is provided for plant protection product registrations according to all EU national legislations and EU requirements, including biological dossiers, complex exposure/ risk assessments and computer modelling of environmental fate behaviour. Task force management, project coordination and scienti�c monitoring of experimental investigations complete this package of services.www.ebrc.de

. . . GM crops continued from page XXV

Visit Agrow’s website at www.agrow.com

XXVI www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2010

Silver Jubilee

BUYER’S GUIDE

CONSULTANCIES CONTD.

EuroChemLink EuroChemLink is a registration consultancy handling agrochemicals, , biocides, and general chemicals under REACH. Thirty year’s experience in European registrations in all member states and in working with the European Commission we offer task force management, dossier preparation, preparation of dossiers in CADDY and IUCLID, plus study placement and monitoring.www.eurochemlink.com email: [email protected]

JSC InternationalDedicated regulatory specialists, with backgrounds from government, contract research and industry, providing a comprehensive service to the agrochemical, biocide and chemical industries. Our advice is unbiased and ethical, �nding the quickest and most economical route through the regulatory maze.www.jsci.co.uk

Scienti�c Consulting CompanySpecialized consulting for the registration of plant protection products, biocides, chemicals and consumer products, as well as food andfeed additives: SCC takes care! Our wide range of experienced scienti�c experts can help with all aspects of a registration, thereby assuring a competent and continuous consultancy for the complete spectrum of registration issues, as well as providing the qualitatively best regulatory and scienti�c consultancy services possible. Task force/consortia management, GLP archiving and REACH expertise are also part of our services.www.scc-gmbh.de

MARKET RESEARCH

KadenceAn international research agency with extensive agriculture experience; specialist researchers work with clients to deliver insight and knowledge rather than just data. Simon Everard 020 8246 5400www.kadence.com

Produkt + Markt Marketing Research We provide deep insight into agricultural markets worldwide. Excellence in selecting the optimal methodology, cutting-edge tools and our outstanding expertise makes us the preferred consultant of industry leaderswww.pundm.de

CONTRACT RESEARCH ORGANISATION

NotoxOur up to date expert consultancy and complete regulatory service portfolio includes test-strategy development, project management, exposure and hazard assessments, dossier compilation and submission. Furthermore we provide you with all studies necessary for your registrations including but not limited to in vivo and in vitro toxicology, genetics and environmental toxicology as well as physical-chemical testing. www.notox.nl

Harlan Laboratories Ltd.Harlan Laboratories’ Contract Reseach Services provide the full range of non-clinical regulatory studies for worldwide agrochemical and biocidal registration. This is supported by an experienced regulatory group and state of the art facilities world wide. Get �rst-class support from the market leader.www.harlan.com

To see your company in Agrow’s NEW classified section,

contact [email protected] on 020 7017 6774

AgriGuard AgriGuard, a subsidiary of Mitsui AgriScience International (MASI), is a manufacturer and supplier of off patent plant protection products. The company supplies a wide range of high quality products through established distribution networks in the UK, Ireland, Germany, France, Poland, Morocco and other North African countries. AgriGuard’s uniquely branded products are selectively positioned to meet the ever increasing standards of our customers. We are committed to sustainable agriculture through innovative research and technology and we specialize in the development and sale of high quality cost effective plant protection products. www.agriguard.ie

Agri LifeManufactures BioPesticides viz. Bt-K, Bt-I, Trichoderma viride, Trichoderma harzianum, Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopliae, Verticillium lecanii, Azadirachtin, Karanjin – supported by basic data package. Agri Life offers BioFertilizers like Nitrogen Fixing Bacteria, Phosphorous Solubilizing Bacteria, Potash Mobilizing Bacteria, Ferrous Mobilizing Bacteria, Zinc Mobilizing Bacteria, Mn Mobilizing Bacteria, Sulfur Mobilizing Bacteria, VAM etc.www.agrilife.in [email protected]

Jiangsu Luye Agrochemicals Co., LtdJiangsu Luye Agrochemicals Co., Ltd is a high-tech enterprise which places the equal stress on R&D and production in China. We are mainly engaged in R&D, production and sales of pesticides, chemical intermediates and �ne chemicals. Upholding the tenet of “Establish Famous Brand through Quality, Occupy the Market with Famous Brand”, we constantly strive to provide excellent products and customer services to promote agricultural development worldwide. http://www.luyeagrochem.com E-mail: [email protected]

Jinan GlyLine Chemical Co., LtdJinan GlyLine Chemical Co., Ltd is a professional agrochemical manufacturer in China. It has three manufacturing bases and advanced technology research center. We have passed ISO9001 international quality system certi�cation. Our products are very popular in both domestic and foreign markets. Our Products List are as following: Glyphosate, PMIDA, Atrazine, Acetochlor, Butachlor, Alachlor, Propisochlor, Metolachlor, Pretilachlor, Atrazine, Simazine, Prometryne, Ametryne and others products: Pendimethalin, 2,4-D series, Quizalofop-P-ethyl, Imazethapyr, Paraquat, Haloxyfop-R-Methyl techs and formulations. Website: http://www.glyline.com

OxonA private independent international company dedicated to the synthesis of agrochemicals and chemical intermediates. Oxon has developed its own registration dossiers for main marketswww.sipcam-oxon.com

STRONGER TOGETHER

agroscience services

WE ARE EXPERTS IN:� Analytical Chemistry

� Ecotoxicology

� Environmental Fate / 14C Studies

� Field Studies

� Global Project Management

� Regulatory Affairs

EUROFINS AGROSCIENCE SERVICESBringing together global, multi-disciplined researchcapabilities with market-leading product development and technical support services to the crop protection industry.

Our ability to deliver a full range of regulatory research servicesand professionally managed scientific solutions sets Eurofins Agro-science Services aside as the ideal partner for agroscience research.

www.eurofinsagro.com

Silver Jubilee Issue - Agrow · Silver Jubilee Issue. Contents. Editor's note and an informal ....

Documents

Transcript of Silver Jubilee Issue - Agrow · Silver Jubilee Issue. Contents. Editor's note and an informal ....