The predominant position of large companies, while crucial for the acceptance of biotechnology, at the same time slows down the pace of biotechnological development and application. Large agrochemical and food processing companies are characterized by a number of internal barriers against applications of biotechnology in agriculture. They also show a greater sensibility to the external barriers than many small companies. Their takeover of agricultural biotechnology, therefore, has led to a more evolutionary than revolutionary development.

The significance of biotechnology in agriculture during the late twentieth century has been as much in the realm of symbol and ideology as in its political economy. The ideological roots of biotechnology are long historical ones. The ideology of “productivism,” which was codified during mid-century out of a coincidence of interest among experiment stations, USDA, Congress, agribusiness, and agricultural commodity groups, has encountered numerous challenges since the 1970s. One of the major responses to the crisis of productionism was to forge (...) a social definition of biotechnology as being a revolutionary technology. I conclude by discussing whether biotechnology, as both symbol and substance, is likely to be a basis for attempts to resuscitate productivism in the 1990s now that biotechnology is being demystified, its limits being appreciated, and its opposition still considerable. (shrink)

This article analyses the results of a series of interviews conducted among leading firms in agrofood designed to assess the strategic importance of biotechnologies. Earlier analyses have emphasized either the revolutionary character of these technologies or the ability of oligopoly structure to contain the potential within existing market patterns. Our interviews would suggest that biotechnologies must be situated within the shift to a demand oriented food system. This has led on the on hand to a preoccupation with quality rather than (...) cost-cutting applications. It has also highlighted the inter-connectedness of the different phases of the agrofood system, since the incentive and the capacity to introduce innovations at any one point in the system depends on their acceptability to other actors in the agrofood chain.Biotechnologies have now become integrated into the competitive strategies of the leading actors but they remain ambiguously placed within the emerging “biotechnology” paradigm. The peculiarities of the agrofood system and the limitations of its industrialization have opened the way to strong consumer pressure based on the demand for quality and “natural” food and agriculture. It remains to be seen whether advanced biotechnologies can be assimilated within these priorities. (shrink)