Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012

ISAAA Brief 44-2012

http://www.isaaa.org/purchasepublications/itemdescription.asp?ItemType=BRIEFS&Control=IB044-2012

Description: For the first time since the introduction of biotech/GM crops almost two decades ago, developing countries have grown more hectares of biotech crops than industrialized countries, contributing to food security and further alleviating poverty in some of the world’s most vulnerable regions.

Author: Clive James

Published by: ISAAA

Copyright: ISAAA

Correct citation: James, Clive. 2012. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012. ISAAA Brief No. 44. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

ISBN: 978-1-892456-53-2

ISAAA Brief 44-2012: Contents

Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012

List of Tables and Figures
Highlights
Executive Summary: A separate supplement to this Brief and accessible at http://www.isaaa.org
Introduction
Global Area of Biotech Crops in 2012
Distribution of Biotech Crops in Industrial and Developing Countries
Distribution of Biotech Crops by Country

USA
Brazil
Argentina
Canada
India
China
Paraguay
South Africa
Pakistan
Uruguay
Bolivia
Philippines
Australia
Burkina Faso
Myanmar
Mexico
Spain
Chile
Colombia
Honduras
Sudan
Portugal
Czech Republic
Cuba
Egypt
Costa Rica
Romania
Slovakia
Poland
European Union
Africa

Distribution of Biotech Crops, by Crop

Biotech Soybean
Biotech Maize
Biotech Cotton
Biotech Canola
Biotech Alfalfa
Other Biotech Crops

Distribution of Biotech Crops, by Trait
Dominant Biotech Crops in 2012
Global Adoption of Biotech Soybean, Maize, Cotton, Canola
The Global Value of the Biotech Crop Market
Global Status of Regulatory Approvals
Drought – The Most Important Constraint To Crop Productivity Globally – A Historical Perspective 
Progress in Achieving and Delivering Drought Tolerance in Maize — an Update
Future Prospects, 2013 to 2015, the MDG year 
Closing Comments
Acknowledgments
References
Appendices

Appendix 1:    Global Crop Protection Market
Appendix 2:    Useful Tables and Charts on the International Seed Trade
Appendix 3:    Deployment of Approved Bt Cotton Events/Hybrids/Variety by Companies/Institutions in India
Appendix 4:    Listing of Events, Bt Cotton Variety and Hybrids in India

==========

ISAAA Brief 44-2012: Executive Summary

Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012

Biotech Crop hectares increased by an unprecedented 100-fold,
from 1.7 million hectares in 1996, to 170 million hectares in 2012.

Introduction

This Executive Summary focuses on the 2012 biotech crop highlights, which are presented and discussed in detail in ISAAA Brief 44, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012, and dedicated to the 1 billion poor and hungry people and their survival.

Biotech crops increase in 2012 for the 17th consecutive year

A record 170.3 million hectares of biotech crops were grown globally in 2012, at an annual growth rate of 6%, up 10.3 million from 160 million hectares in 2011. 2012 was the 17th year of commercialization of biotech crops, 1996-2012, when growth continued after a remarkable 16 consecutive years of increases.

Biotech crops fastest adopted crop technology

2012 marked an unprecedented 100-fold increase in biotech crop hectarage from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 170 million hectares in 2012 – this makes biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in recent history – the reason – it delivers benefits.

Millions of farmers elect to adopt biotech crops due to benefits they offer

In the period 1996 to 2012, millions of farmers in ~30 countries worldwide, adopted biotech crops at unprecedented rates. The most compelling and credible testimony to biotech crops is that during the 17 year period 1996 to 2012, millions of farmers in ~30 countries worldwide, elected to make more than 100 million independent decisions to plant and replant an accumulated hectarage of more than 1.5 billion hectares – an area 50% larger than the total land mass of the US or China – there is one principal and overwhelming reason that underpins the trust and confidence of risk-averse farmers in biotechnology – biotech crops deliver substantial, and sustainable, socio-economic and environmental benefits. The 2011 study conducted in Europe confirmed that biotech crops are safe.

28 countries grow biotech crops with the top ten each growing more than 1 million hectares

Of the 28 countries which planted biotech crops in 2012, 20 were developing and 8 were industrial countries. This compares with 19 developing and 10 industrial in 2011. Thus there are three times as many developing countries growing biotech crops as there are industrial countries. See a listing of countries and hectarages in Table 1 and Figure 1. The top 10 countries each grew more than 1 million hectares providing a broad-based worldwide foundation for diversified growth in the future; in fact, the top nine each grew more than 2 million hectares. More than half the world’s population, 60% or ~4 billion people, live in the 28 countries planting biotech crops.

Two new countries plant biotech crops and three countries did not offer biotech seed for purchase by farmers.

Two new countries, Sudan (Bt cotton) and Cuba (Bt maize) planted biotech crops for the first time in 2012.  Germany and Sweden could not plant the biotech potato, Amflora because it ceased to be marketed; Poland discontinued planting Bt maize because of regulation inconsistencies in the interpretation of the law on planting approval between the EU and Poland; the EU maintains that all necessary approvals are already in place for planting whereas Poland does not. In 2012, Sudan became the fourth country in Africa, after South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt, to commercialize a biotech crop – biotech Bt cotton. A total of 20,000 hectares were planted in both rainfed areas and irrigated schemes. About 10,000 farmers were the initial beneficiaries who have an average of about 1-2.5 hectares of land. In a landmark event Cuba joined the group of countries planting biotech crops in 2012. For the first time, farmers in Cuba grew 3,000 hectares of hybrid Bt maize in a “regulated commercialization” initiative in which farmers seek permission to grow biotech maize commercially. The initiative is part of an ecologically sustainable pesticide-free program featuring biotech maize hybrids and mycorrhizal additives. The Bt maize, with resistance to the major pest, fall armyworm, was developed by the Havana-based Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB).

Over 17 million farmers benefit from biotech crops

In 2012, a record 17.3 million farmers, up 0.6 million from 2011, grew biotech crops – notably, over 90%, or over 15 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Farmers are the masters of risk aversion and in 2012, 7.2 million small farmers in China and another 7.2 million small farmers in India, collectively planted a record ~15.0 million hectares of biotech crops. Bt cotton increased the income of farmers significantly by up to US$250 per hectare and also halved the number of insecticide sprays, thus reducing farmer exposure to pesticides.

Developing countries plant more biotech crops than industrial countries

For the first time, developing countries grew more, 52% of global biotech crops in 2012 than industrial countries at 48%. This is contrary to the prediction of critics who, prior to the commercialization of the technology in 1996, prematurely declared that biotech crops were only for industrial countries and would never be accepted and adopted by developing countries. In 2012, the growth rate for biotech crops was at least three times as fast and five times as large in developing countries, at 11% or 8.7 million hectares, versus 3% or 1.6 million hectares in industrial countries. During the period 1996-2011 cumulative economic benefits were high in developing countries at US$49.6 billion compared to US$48.6 billion generated by industrial countries. For 2011 alone, economic benefits for developing countries were higher at US$10.1 billion compared with US$9.6 billion for developed countries for a total of US$19.7 billion.

Stacked traits occupied ~25% of the global 170 million hectares

Stacked traits are an important feature of biotech crops – 13 countries planted biotech crops with two or more traits in 2012. Encouragingly, 10 were developing countries. Around 43.7 million hectares equivalent to 26% of the 170 million hectares were stacked in 2012, up from 42.2 million hectares or 26% of the 160 million hectares in 2011. 

The 5 lead biotech developing countries are China, India, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa – they grew 46% of global biotech crops, and have ~40% of world population

The five lead developing countries in biotech crops are China and India in Asia, Brazil and Argentina in Latin America, and South Africa on the continent of Africa, collectively grew 78.2 million hectares (46% of global) and together represent ~40% of the global population of 7 billion, which could reach 10.1 billion by 2100. Remarkably, Africa alone could escalate from 1 billion today (~15% of global) to a possible high of 3.6 billion (~35% of global) by the end of this century in 2100 – global food security, exacerbated by high and unaffordable food prices, is a formidable challenge to which biotech crops can contribute but are not a panacea.

Brazil, the engine of biotech crop growth

Brazil ranks second only to the USA in biotech crop hectarage in the world, with 36.6 million hectares, and emerging as a global leader in biotech crops. For the fourth consecutive year, Brazil was the engine of growth globally in 2012, increasing its hectarage of biotech crops more than any other country in the world – a record 6.3 million hectare increase, equivalent to an impressive year-over-year increase of 21%. Brazil grows 21% of the global hectarage of 170 million hectares and is consolidating its position by consistently closing the gap with the US. A fast track approval system allows Brazil to approve events in a timely manner. Brazil has already approved the first stacked soybean with insect resistance and herbicide tolerance for commercialization in 2013. Notably, EMBRAPA, a public sector institution, with an annual budget of ~US$1 billion, gained approval to commercialize a home-grown biotech virus resistant bean, (rice and beans are the staples of Latin America) developed entirely with its own resources, thus demonstrating its impressive technical capacity to develop, deliver and deploy a new state-of-the art biotech crop.

USA maintains leadership role and Canada grows record canola hectarage

The US continued to be the lead producer of biotech crops globally with 69.5 million hectares, with an average adoption rate of ~90% across all biotech crops. Canada grew a record 8.4 million hectares of biotech canola at a record adoption rate of 97.5%.

India and China continue to grow more Bt cotton  

India cultivated a record 10.8 million hectares of Bt cotton with an adoption rate of 93%, whilst 7.2 million small resource poor farmers in China grew 4.0 million hectares of Bt cotton with an adoption rate of 80%, cultivating on average, 0.5 hectare per farmer. India enhanced farm income from Bt cotton by US$12.6 billion in the period 2002 to 2011 and US$3.2 billion in 2011 alone.

Progress in Africa

Africa continued to make progress with South Africa increasing its biotech area by a record 0.6 million hectares to reach 2.9 million hectares; Sudan joined South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt, to bring the total number of African biotech countries to four. In South Africa the hectarage occupied by biotech crops in 2012 continued to increase for the 15th consecutive season, driven mainly by increased hectarage under maize and soybeans. The estimated total biotech crop area in 2012 was 2.9 million hectares, compared with 2.3 million hectares in 2011/2012, an impressive 26% annual increase in area.

Five EU countries planted a record 129,071 hectares of biotech Bt maize, up 13% from 2011. Spain was by far the largest adopter planting 90% of the total Bt maize hectarage in the EU.

Five EU countries (Spain, Portugal, Czechia, Slovakia and Romania) planted a record 129,071 hectares of biotech Bt maize, a substantial 13% increase over 2011, with Spain growing 90%, equivalent to 116,307 hectares of the total Bt maize hectarage in the EU. Spain had a record adoption rate of 30%. The planned approval in 2014, subject to clearance of a new biotech potato named “Fortuna” resistant to late blight, (the most important disease of potatoes), is potentially an important product, that can meet EU policy and environmental needs to make potato production more sustainable by reducing heavy fungicide applications and decreasing production losses estimated at up to US$1.5 billion annually in the EU alone, and US$7.5 billon worldwide.

Biotech crops contribution to Food Security, Sustainability and Climate Change

From 1996 to 2011, biotech crops contributed to Food Security, Sustainability and Climate Change by: increasing crop production valued at US$98.2 billion; providing a better environment, by saving 473 million kg a.i. of pesticides; in 2011 alone reducing CO2 emissions by 23.1 billion kg, equivalent to taking 10.2 million cars off the road; conserving biodiversity by saving 108.7 million hectares of land; and helped alleviate poverty by helping >15.0 million small farmers, and their families totalling >50 million people,  who are some of the poorest people in the world. Biotech crops are essential but are not a panacea and adherence to good farming practices such as rotations and resistance management, are a must for biotech crops as they are for conventional crops. 

Contribution of biotech crops to Sustainability

Biotech crops are contributing to sustainability in the following five ways:

•     Contributing to food, feed and fiber security and self sufficiency, including more affordable food, by increasing productivity and economic benefits sustainably at the farmer level

      Economic gains at the farm level of ~US$98.2 billion were generated globally by biotech crops during the sixteen year period 1996 to 2011, of which 51% were due to reduced production costs (less ploughing, fewer pesticide sprays and less labor) and 49% due to substantial yield gains of 328 million tons. The corresponding figures for 2011 alone was 78% of the total gain due to increased yield (equivalent to 50.2 million tons), and 22% due to lower cost of production (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013, Forthcoming).

•     Conserving biodiversity, biotech crops are a land saving technology

      Biotech crops are a land-saving technology, capable of higher productivity on the current 1.5 billion hectares of arable land, and thereby can help preclude deforestation and protect biodiversity in forests and in other in-situ biodiversity sanctuaries. Approximately 13 million hectares of biodiversity – rich tropical forests, are lost in developing countries annually. If the 328 million tons of additional food, feed and fiber produced by biotech crops during the period 1996 to 2011 had not been produced by biotech crops, an additional 108.7 million hectares (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013, Forthcoming) of conventional crops would have been required to produce the same tonnage. Some of the additional 108.7 million hectares would probably have required fragile marginal lands, not suitable for crop production, to be ploughed, and for tropical forest, rich in biodiversity, to be felled to make way for slash and burn agriculture in developing countries, thereby destroying biodiversity.

•     Contributing to the alleviation of poverty and hunger

      To-date, biotech cotton in developing countries such as China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bolivia, Burkina Faso and South Africa have already made a significant contribution to the income of >15 million small resource-poor farmers in 2012; this can be enhanced significantly in the remaining 3 years of the second decade of commercialization, 2013 to 2015 principally with biotech cotton and maize.

•     Reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint

      Conventional agriculture has impacted significantly on the environment, and biotechnology can be used to reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture. Progress to-date includes: a significant reduction in pesticides; saving on fossil fuels; decreasing CO2 emissions through no/less ploughing; and conserving soil and moisture by optimizing the practice of no till through application of herbicide tolerance. The accumulative reduction in pesticides for the period 1996 to 2011 was estimated at 473 million kilograms (kgs) of active ingredient (a.i.), a saving of 8.9% in pesticides, which is equivalent to an 18.3% reduction in the associated environmental impact of pesticide use on these crops, as measured by the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) – a composite measure based on the various factors contributing to the net environmental impact of an individual active ingredient. The corresponding data for 2011 alone was a reduction of 37 million kgs a.i. (equivalent to a saving of 8.5% in pesticides) and a reduction of 22.8% in EIQ (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013, Forthcoming).

      Increasing efficiency of water usage will have a major impact on conservation and availability of water globally. Seventy percent of fresh water is currently used by agriculture globally, and this is obviously not sustainable in the future as the population increases by almost 30% to over 9 billion by 2050. The first biotech maize hybrids with a degree of drought tolerance are expected to be commercialized by 2013 in the USA, and the first tropical drought tolerant biotech maize is expected by ~2017 for sub-Saharan Africa. Drought tolerance is expected to have a major impact on more sustainable cropping systems worldwide, particularly in developing countries, where drought is more prevalent and severe than industrial countries.

•     Helping mitigate climate change and reducing greenhouse gases

      The important and urgent concerns about the environment have implications for biotech crops, which contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gases and help mitigate climate change in two principal ways. First, permanent savings in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through reduced use of fossil-based fuels, associated with fewer insecticide and herbicide sprays; in 2011, this was an estimated saving of 1.9 billion kg of CO2, equivalent to reducing the number of cars on the roads by 0.8 million. Secondly, additional savings from conservation tillage (need for less or no ploughing facilitated by herbicide tolerant biotech crops) for biotech food, feed and fiber crops, led to an additional soil carbon sequestration equivalent in 2011 to 21.1 billion kg of CO2, or removing 9.4 million cars off the road. Thus in 2011, the combined permanent and additional savings through sequestration was equivalent to a saving of 23 billion kg of CO2 or removing 10.2 million cars from the road (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013, Forthcoming). 

      Droughts, floods, and temperature changes are predicted to become more prevalent and more severe as we face the new challenges associated with climate change, and hence, there will be a need for faster crop improvement programs to develop varieties and hybrids that are well adapted to more rapid changes in climatic conditions. Several biotech crop tools, including tissue culture, diagnostics, genomics, molecular marker-assisted selection (MAS) and biotech crops can be used collectively for ‘speeding the breeding’ and help mitigate the effects of climate change. Biotech crops are already contributing to reducing CO2 emissions by precluding the need for ploughing a significant portion of cropped land, conserving soil, and particularly moisture, and reducing pesticide spraying as well as sequestering CO2.

In summary, collectively the above five thrusts have already demonstrated the capacity of biotech crops to contribute to sustainability in a significant manner and for mitigating the formidable challenges associated with climate change and global warming; and the potential for the future is enormous. Biotech crops can increase productivity and income significantly, and hence, can serve as an engine of rural economic growth that can contribute to the alleviation of poverty for the world’s small and resource-poor farmers.

Regulation of biotech crops

The lack of appropriate, science-based and cost/time-effective regulatory systems continues to be the major constraint to adoption. Responsible, rigorous but not onerous, regulation is needed for small and poor developing countries. It is noteworthy, that on 6 November 2012, in California, USA, voters defeated Proposition 37, the proposed state petition on “Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative” – the final result was No 53.7% and Yes 46.3%.

Status of approved events for biotech crops

While 28 countries planted commercialized biotech crops in 2012, an additional 31 countries totalling 59 have granted regulatory approvals for biotech crops for import, food and feed use and for release into the environment since 1996. A total of 2,497 regulatory approvals involving 25 GM crops and 319 GM events have been issued by competent authorities in 59 countries, of which 1,129 are for food use (direct use or processing), 813 are for feed use (direct use or processing) and 555 are for planting or release into the environment. Of the 59 countries with regulatory approvals, USA has the most number of events approved (196), followed by Japan (182), Canada (131), Mexico (122), Australia (92), South Korea (86), New Zealand (81), European Union (67 including approvals that have expired or under renewal process), Philippines (64), Taiwan (52) and South Africa (49). Maize has the most number of approved events (121 events in 23 countries), followed by cotton (48 events in 19 countries), potato (31 events in 10 countries), canola (30 events in 12 countries) and soybean (22 events in 24 countries). The event that has received the most number of regulatory approvals is the herbicide tolerant maize event NK603 (50 approvals in 22 countries + EU-27), followed by the herbicide tolerant soybean event GTS-40-3-2 (48 approvals in 24 countries + EU-27), insect resistant maize event MON810 (47 approvals in 22 countries + EU-27), insect resistant maize event Bt11 (43 approvals in 20 countries + EU-27), insect resistant cotton event MON531 (36 approvals in 17 countries + EU-27) and insect resistant cotton event MON1445 (31 approvals in 14 countries + EU-27).

Global value of biotech seed alone was ~US$15 billion in 2012

Global value of biotech seed alone was ~US$15 billion in 2012. A 2011 study estimated that the cost of discovery, development and authorization of a new biotech crop/trait is ~US$135 million. In 2012, the global market value of biotech crops, estimated by Cropnosis, was US$14.84 billion, (up from US$13.35 billion in 2011); this represents 23% of the US$64.62 billion global crop protection market in 2012, and 35% of the ~US$34 billion commercial seed market. The estimated global farm-gate revenues of the harvested commercial “end product” (the biotech grain and other harvested products) is more than ten times greater than the value of the biotech seed alone.

Future Prospects

Future prospects up to the MDG year of 2015 and beyond look encouraging. Several new developing countries are expected to plant biotech crops before 2015 led by Asia, and there is cautious optimism that Africa will be well-represented: the first biotech based drought tolerant maize planned for release in North America in 2013 and in Africa by ~2017; the first stacked soybean tolerant to herbicide and insect resistant will be planted in Brazil in 2013; subject to regulatory approval, Golden Rice could be released in the Philippines in 2013/2014; drought tolerant sugarcane is a possible candidate in Indonesia, and biotech maize in China with a potential of ~30 million hectares and for the future biotech rice which has an enormous potential to benefit up to 1 billion poor people in rice households in Asia alone. Biotech crops, whilst not a panacea, have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the 2015 MDG goal of cutting poverty in half, by optimizing crop productivity, which can be expedited by public-private sector partnerships, such as the WEMA project, supported in poor developing countries by the new generation of philanthropic foundations, such as the Gates and Buffet foundations. Observers are cautiously optimistic about the future with more modest annual gains predicted because of the already high rate of adoption in all the principal crops in mature markets in both developing and industrial countries.

Drought in the USA in 2012

The worst drought in 50 years impacted on crop production in the USA in 2012. The drought was estimated to have affected 26 of the 52 states, and covered at least 55% of the land area of the USA, which is almost 1 billion hectares. In comparison, the more severe Dust Bowl drought of 1934 covered almost 80% of the US land area. By the end of July 2012, drought and extreme heat had affected more than 1,000 counties in 29 states and they were designated natural disaster counties by USDA. As of July 2012, compared with the average year, 38% of the US maize crop had already been rated as poor and similarly 30% of soybean was rated poor. Given that the maize crop is the most important in the US valued at US$76.5 billion in 2011, losses for 2012 are expected to be substantial. The drought in Texas alone in 2011 was estimated to have cost US$7.6 billion and final losses for the drought of 2012 are likely to be much higher. Since US maize and US soybean exports represent 53% and 43% of global maize and soybean exports, respectively, the impact of the 2012 drought on international prices are likely to be significant. There is some comfort in the fact that global rice and wheat supplies were relatively plentiful in 2012 and the hope is that they will preclude a broad escalation of commodity prices as was the case in mid-2008. Maize is more vulnerable than soybean to price escalation because the shortfall in maize production could be exacerbated by the demand for maize for biofuel production in the US.

Some preliminary advance estimates in July 2012 suggested that losses in the US soybean and maize area affected by drought could be as high as 30%, but reliable estimates will not be available until later. Some of the most recent estimates indicate that compared with 2011 yields the average for 2012 will be 21% less for maize and 12% less for soybeans. Preliminary estimates by USDA suggested that the 2012 drought would result in increases in food prices of 3 to 4% in 2013, with beef prices increasing by 4 to 5%. 

First biotech drought tolerant maize to be deployed in the US in 2013

Drought tolerance conferred through biotech crops is viewed as the most important trait that will be commercialized in the second decade of commercialization, 2006 to 2015, and beyond, because it is, by far, the single most important constraint to increased productivity for crops worldwide. The first and most advanced drought tolerant biotech/transgenic maize, will be launched commercially by Monsanto in the USA in 2013. Notably, the same technology, has been donated by the technology developers, Monsanto and BASF, to a Private/Public sector partnership (WEMA) which hopes to release the first biotech drought tolerant maize as early as 2017 in sub-Saharan Africa where the need for drought tolerance is greatest.

Global review of drought tolerance

Given the pivotal importance of drought tolerance, ISAAA invited Dr. Greg O. Edmeades, former leader of the maize drought program at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), to contribute a timely global overview on the status of drought tolerance in maize, in both conventional and biotech approaches, in the private and public sector, and to discuss future prospects in the near, mid and long term. The contribution by Dr. Edmeades, “Progress in Achieving and Delivering Drought Tolerance in Maize — An Update”, supported by key references, is included as a chapter in the full version of Brief 44, as well as an introductory chapter on drought to highlight the enormous global importance of the drought tolerance trait, which virtually no crop or farmer in the world can afford to be without.

=================

ISAAA Brief 44-2012: Highlights

Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012
By Clive James, Founder and Chair of ISAAA

Dedicated by the author to the 1 billion poor and hungry people, and their survival

Biotech Crop hectares increased by an unprecedented 100-fold from
1.7 million hectares in 1996, to 170 million hectares in 2012

A record 170.3 million hectares of biotech crops were grown globally in 2012, at an annual growth rate of 6%, up 10.3 million from 160 million hectares in 2011.

2012 marked an unprecedented 100-fold increase in biotech crop hectarage from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 170 million hectares in 2012 – this  makes biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in recent history – the reason – they deliver benefits.

In the period 1996 to 2012, millions of farmers in ~30 countries worldwide, made more than 100 million independent decisions to plant an accumulated hectarage of more than 1.5 billion hectares – 50% more than the land mass of the US or China; this demonstrates the trust and confidence of millions of risk-averse farmers in biotech crops which deliver sustainable and substantial, socioeconomic and environmental benefits.

Two new countries, Sudan (Bt cotton) and Cuba (Bt maize) planted for the first time in 2012. Germany and Sweden could not plant the potato “Amflora” because it ceased to be marketed; Poland discontinued planting Bt maize because of regulation constraints.

Of the 28 countries which planted biotech crops in 2012, 20 were developing and 8 were industrial countries; this compares with 19 developing and 10 industrial in 2011.  

In 2012, a record 17.3 million farmers, up 0.6 million from 2011, grew biotech crops – remarkably over 90%, or over 15 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Farmers are the masters of risk aversion and in 2012, a record 7.2 million small farmers in China and another 7.2 million in India, elected to plant almost 15 million hectares of Bt cotton, because of the significant benefits it offers. 

For the first time, developing countries grew more, 52%, of global biotech crops in 2012 than industrial countries at 48%. In 2012, growth rate for biotech crops was at least three times as fast, and five times as large in developing countries, at 11% or 8.7 million hectares, versus 3% or 1.6 million hectares in industrial countries.  

Stacked traits are an important feature – 13 countries planted biotech crops with two or more traits in 2012, and encouragingly, 10 of the 13 were developing countries – 43.7 million hectares, or more than a quarter, of the 170 million hectares were stacked in 2012.

Brazil, for the fourth consecutive year, was the engine of growth globally, increasing its hectarage of biotech crops more than any other country – an impressive record increase of 6.3 million hectares, up 21% from 2011, reaching 36.6 million hectares.

The US continued to be the lead country with 69.5 million hectares, with an average 90% adoption across all crops. Impact of US 2012 drought for maize was 21% loss in productivity and in soybean,12%. Canada had a record 8.4 million hectares of canola at a record 97.5% adoption.     

India grew a record 10.8 million hectares of Bt cotton with an adoption rate of 93%, whilst 7.2 million small resource-poor farmers in China grew 4.0 million hectares of Bt cotton with an adoption rate of 80%, cultivating on average 0.5 hectare per farmer. India enhanced farm income from Bt cotton by US$12.6 billion in the period 2002 to 2011 and US$3.2 billion in 2011 alone.     

Africa continued to make progress with South Africa increasing its biotech area by a record 0.6 million hectares to reach 2.9 million hectares; Sudan joined South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt, to bring the total number of African biotech countries to four. 

Five EU countries planted a record 129,071 hectares of biotech Bt maize, up 13% from 2011. Spain led the EU with 116,307 hectares of Bt maize, up 20% from 2011.

From 1996 to 2011, biotech crops contributed to Food Security, Sustainability and Climate Change by: increasing crop production valued at US$98.2 billion; providing a better environment, by saving 473 million kg a.i. of pesticides; in 2011 alone reducing CO2 emissions by 23.1 billion kg, equivalent to taking 10.2 million cars off the road; conserving biodiversity by saving 108.7 million hectares of land; and helped alleviate poverty by helping >15.0 million small farmers and their families totalling >50 million people, who are some of the poorest people in the world. Biotech crops are essential but are not a panacea and adherence to good farming practices such as rotations and resistance management, are a must for biotech crops as they are for conventional crops.

The lack of appropriate, science-based and cost/time-effective regulatory systems continue to be the major constraint to adoption. Responsible, rigorous but not onerous, regulation is needed for small and poor developing countries.

Global value of biotech seed alone was valued at ~US$15 billion in 2012.

Future Prospects – cautiously optimistic with more modest annual gains predicted because of the already high rate of adoption in all the principal crops in mature markets in both developing and industrial countries.

브라질 GMO 규제당국의 전문가들 사이에 몬산토의 유전자조작 옥수수 NK603 의 안전성에
대한 입장이 합의되지 못했다는 소식입니다.  이는 브라질 GMO 규제당국의 친-GM 기업성향의
전문가 4명이 세라리니 교수팀의 2012년 논문에 대한 비판 글에 대해 브라질 GMO 규제당국
CNTBio( in combination with Brazil’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation)의
전문가들 사이에 입장이 합의되지 못했기 때문입니다.

브라질은 지난 2012년 미국에 이어 제2위 대한국 GMO 수출국입니다.

*2012년 GMO가 포함된 콩, 옥수수, 면실 등 농산물의 국내 수입승인 규모는 26억7000만 달러(784만 톤)
*수입국가 : 미국(36%), 브라질(32%), 아르헨티나(15%)
*식용(옥수수, 콩 등) : 8억5000만 달러(192만 톤)
*사료용(옥수수, 면실유 등) : 18억3000만 달러(593만 톤)
(출처 : 한국생명공학연구원 바이오안전성정보센터, ’2012년 GMO 주요 통계’, 2013.4.9)

Scientists from Brazil’s GMO regulatory agency protest dismissal of Seralini study

Tuesday, 21 May 2013 12:16

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14852:scientists-from-brazils-gmo-regulatory-agency-protest-dismissal-of-seralini-study

동아일보 기사입력 2012-12-20 03:00:00 기사수정 2012-12-20 08:59:04
http://news.donga.com/Society/3/03/20121220/51729475/1

올들어 가공용 15t 수입

정부가 광우병(BSE·소해면상뇌증)이 발생한 브라질산(産) 쇠고기 수입을 중단했다.

농림수산식품부 당국자는 19일 “세계동물보건기구(OIE)로부터 이달 8일 브라질의 광우병 발병 소식을 통보받았다”며 “브라질 측은 ‘비(非)정형 광우병’이라 안전하다고 주장하지만 국민 안전을 고려해 즉각 수입중단 조치를 내렸다”고 19일 밝혔다.

OIE는 브라질 남부 파라나 주(州)에서 2010년 12월 사망한 소 한 마리(연령 13년)의 사망 원인이 광우병이었음을 밝혀내 회원국에 통보했다. 이에 따라 일본 중국 남아프리카공화국 이집트 사우디아라비아가 이미 브라질산 쇠고기 수입을 중단했다.

브라질에서 광우병이 발생한 것은 이번이 처음이다. 브라질은 그동안 OIE로부터 ‘광우병 청정국’ 지위를 인정받아왔다. 브라질은 이번에 확인된 광우병이 비정형(돌연변이형)이기 때문에 안전하다고 강조하고 있다. 오염된 사료 때문에 발병하는 ‘정형 광우병’과 달리 비정형 광우병은 뇌의 노화나 돌연변이가 원인으로 10년 이상 된 소에서 주로 발생한다.

올해 한국이 수입한 브라질산 쇠고기 가공제품은 약 15t으로 전체 쇠고기 및 쇠고기 가공제품 수입량의 0.005%다. 브라질은 구제역 발생 국가여서 쇠고기 형태로 수입된 적은 없고 곰탕 등 가공한 제품만 수입이 허용돼 왔다.

농식품부 당국자는 “2003년에 미국에서 광우병이 처음 발생했을 때도 즉각 수입중단 조치를 내렸다가 위험평가를 통해 안전하다는 판단이 내려진 다음 수입을 재개했다”며 “브라질산 쇠고기 역시 같은 과정을 거쳐 수입 재개 여부를 판단할 것”이라고 말했다.

유성열 기자 ryu@donga.com

Number of reported cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)
in farmed cattle worldwide*(excluding the United Kingdom)

일본, 광우병 관련 브라질産 쇠고기 수입 중단

연합뉴스 | 입력 2012.12.09 01:24 | 수정 2012.12.09 04:39

(도쿄 교도=연합뉴스) 일본이 브라질에서 광우병 발병 사실을 확인한 데 따라 브라질산 쇠고기의 수입을 8일부터 중단했다.

일본정부는 브라질에서 연령이 13년인 소 한 마리가 지난 2010년 12월 광우병에 감염돼 죽었다는 사실을 세계동물보건기구(WAHO)로부터 이날 통보받았다.

후생노동성에 따르면 일본이 광우병으로 쇠고기 수입을 금지한 것은 지난 2003년 미국산 쇠고기 수입을 제한한 이후 이번이 처음이다.

그러나 이번 브라질산 쇠고기 수입 중단으로 인한 일본 시장 내 영향은 제한적일 것으로 보인다. 일본이 지난해 브라질에서 들여온 쇠고기는 1천400t으로, 해외 수입 쇠고기의 0.3%에 불과하다.

일본은 브라질에서 구제역이 발생했어도 열가공처리를 거친 쇠고기의 수입은 그동안 허용했었다.

일본정부는 브라질 측에 광우병 발생과 관련한 자세한 내용을 요청했다.

브라질은 전세계적으로 광우병 발생이 확인된 26번째 국가가 됐다.

bhk@yan.co.kr

(끝)

=======================

러시아, 광우병 발병 브라질 쇠고기 수입중단 검토

<세계파이낸스> 입력 2012.12.12 08:19:45, 수정 2012.12.12 08:19:45
http://www.segyefn.com/articles/article.asp?aid=20121212020503&cid=0501030000000&OutUrl=daum

러시아가 브라질산 쇠고기 수입을 중단하려는 움직임을 보이고 있다. 광우병 발병 사실이 확인된데 따른 것이다.

11일(현지시간) 브라질 일간지 폴랴 데 상파울루에 따르면 러시아 당국은 브라질에서 광우병이 발병한 사실이 드러남에 따라 브라질산 쇠고기 수입 중단을 검토하고 있다고 밝혔다고 연합뉴스는 전했다.

러시아가 수입 중단을 결정하면 브라질 축산업계는 상당한 타격을 받을 것으로 보인다

러시아는 전 세계에서 브라질산 쇠고기를 가장 많이 수입하는 국가다. 올해 1~9월 러시아의 전체 쇠고기 수입량 가운데 브라질산은 43%를 차지한다. 열처리 가공육을 제외한 생육 수입량 비중은 27%였다.

일본은 지난 8일부터 브라질산 쇠고기 수입을 중단했다.

일본 정부는 브라질에서 연령 13년인 소 한 마리가 2010년 12월 광우병에 걸려 죽었다는 사실을 세계동물보건기구(WAHO)로부터 통보받았다.

일본이 광우병 때문에 쇠고기 수입을 중단한 것은 2003년 미국산 쇠고기 수입을 제한한 이후 처음이다.

그러나 브라질산 쇠고기 수입 중단에 따른 일본 시장 내 영향은 제한적일 것으로 보인다. 일본이 지난해 브라질에서 들여온 쇠고기는 1천400t으로, 전체 쇠고기 수입량의 0.3%에 불과했다.

한편 브라질은 전 세계적으로 광우병 발생이 확인된 26번째 국가가 됐다.

세계파이낸스 뉴스팀 fn@segyefn.com

=====================
Brazil government denies reports of 2010 mad cow case

BRASILIA | 로이터통신 Fri Dec 7, 2012 1:22pm EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/us-brazil-madcow-idUSBRE8B60GH20121207

(Reuters) – Brazil’s Agriculture Ministry said on Friday that the country has not registered any case of mad cow disease, denying reports on some local media web sites that said the disease had cropped up in the southern state of Parana two years ago.

Brazilian officials said the animal that died in Parana in December 2010 did not have bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly called mad cow disease, just the protein believed to cause the disease, which likely appeared after a spontaneous genetic mutation in the 13-year-old cow.

Test results suggested the animal would have been unlikely to go on to develop the disease had it not died of other causes, the agriculture ministry said, adding the simple presence of the protein, called a prion, is considered an atypical case of BSE.

Results of tests carried out in England this month by the World Animal Health Organization (OIE) on tissue from the cow, confirmed the presence of the protein, Brazilian officials said in a press conference.

The OIE has not yet made its report public.

“The animal in question didn’t manifest the disease and didn’t die of this cause,” said Executive Secretary Jose Carlos Vaz, one of the agriculture ministry’s top officials.

Officials could not confirm the exact cause of death of the pasture-fed female used for breeding purposes, but said it had septicemia and mineral deficiencies. Its keepers notified authorities after it was found collapsed on the ground. It died 24 hours later. A neurodegenerative disease would have taken much longer to cause death, officials pointed out.

The OIE has maintained Brazil’s status as a country with an insignificant risk of BSE, the officials said, adding Brazil would pursue legal action if necessary against any importer trying to exploit BSE claims to block imports of Brazilian beef.

Asked why it had taken two years for Brazil to send a sample of the cow’s tissue to the OIE for testing on December 1, officials said the country adhered to the established protocol of conducting exhaustive tests at home first.

Share prices of Brazil’s main beef companies sank in early trade after the media reports describing the case as mad cow disease were picked up and circulated by local equities analysts. Shares of Brazil’s JBS SA slipped as much as 3 percent in early trade but later were down just 0.54 percent after the government published a denial of the reports.

Alexandre Inacio, an adviser for JBS SA, the world’s largest beef producer, said the company had little to add beyond the ministry’s statements.

Shares of beef producer Minerva SA fell 4 percent in early trade but were down just 0.45 percent in the afternoon as the Bovespa index rose 1.19 percent. Marfrig Alimentos SA was down 0.71 percent.

Marfrig said in an e-mailed statement that there are no incidents of mad cow in Brazil.

“The disease is related to the cattle’s ingestion of animal products, which is forbidden in Brazil,” the statement said.

The ministry had already denied reports of a case of mad cow disease after news agencies picked up on the story originally reported after the animal’s death in 2010.

A story posted on the website of financial newspaper Valor Economico early on Friday said the cow in Parana had probably died of mad cow disease.

The outbreak of mad cow disease in Europe, North America and Japan over the past decade often prompted beef importers to embargo shipments and caused temporary chaos in the industry. Brazil is the world’s largest beef exporter.

(Reporting by Reese Ewing, Caroline Stauffer, Gustavo Bonato and Peter Murphy; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Gerald E. McCormick and Bob Burgdorfer)

사탕수수 먹고 달리는 자동차 천국

브라질 사람들이 8일(현지시각) 상파울루주 캄피나스시에 있는 현대차 HB20 딜러점을 찾아 자동차 구입 상담을 하고 있다. 브라질 신차 구매 시장에선 HB20처럼 혼합연료를 쓰는 자동차가 86%를 차지한다. 현대자동차 제공

바이오차 각축지 브라질 가보니
생산량 넘치는 사탕수수 발효한
에탄올 혼합연료 바이오차
신차 판매 시장 86% 차지
정부 보조금·감세 혜택 더해 인기
세계 차업계, 친환경차 앞다퉈 출시

세계 각국의 돼지사육현황
http://www.koreapork.or.kr/sub2_2_Bookview.html?number=372&page=1&xcode=04

중국 4억6천7백82만8천두
베트남 1795만두
브라질 3660만두

* 브라질의 축산규모(인구 : 1억 6천만명)

소 : 2억 720만 두(2007)
돼지 : 3천261만두 (2003)
닭 : 10억 5,005만수(2003)

2000년 국제육류사무국(International Meat Secreatariat)의 세계 회의에서의 발표 내용에 의하면 브라질의 돼지 생산량은 산지 기준으로 2백50만톤의 생산능력을 갖추고 있다고 한다.
1990년도에는 전국 사육두수 2천78만두의 돼지 가운데 단지 9백만두가 200두 이상의 기업형 양돈장에서 사육되었다.

1980년 브라질의 전국 돼지 사육두수는 3천4백만두 규모였는데, 1990년도에는 2천9백만두, 1991년도에 3천6백만두, 1992년도에 3천5백만두, 그 이후 약간씩 감소 추세를 보이다가 1999년도에 3천2백만두, 2000년도에는 다시 3천3백만두 규모로 다시 증가 추세를 보이고 있다. 2000년도 번식 모돈은 2백50만두 규모였다.


전세계 소 사육두수(젖소 포함, 물소-buffalo-제외)

출처 : 세계식량기구(FAO, 2007)

1위 브라질 2억 720만두
2위 인도 1억 7780만두
3위 중국 1억 1690만두
4위 아르헨티나 5070만두
5위 멕시코 2900만두
6위 호주 2840만두
7위 프랑스 1940만두
8위 캐나다 1410만두
9위 독일 1260만두
10위 뉴질랜드 970만두

일본 440만두
북한 60만두

=======================================

전세계 양돈산업의 규모

출처 : 한국무역협회가 발표한 ’2008 세계속의 대한민국’ 통계자료

186개국(9억8천988만6천두)

△1위=중국 사육두수가 5억208만두,
△2위= 미국 6천186만두
△3위=브라질 3천408만두
△4위=독일 2천653만두
△5위=베트남 2천650만두
△6위=스페인 2천603만4천두
△7위=폴란드 1천812만9천두
△8위=러시아 1천579만3천두
△9위=멕시코 1천550만두
△10위=프랑스 1천473만6천두
 
△16위=한국 985만두
△17위=일본 975만9천두

====================

* 2005년 10월

http://www.globalwindow.org/wps/portal/gw2/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd423CDQASYGZAR76kehiXiYIsSB9b31fj_zcVP0A_YLc0IhyR0dFAHPA0Kw!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82X0VfOEw1?1=1&workdist=read&id=1210726

세계 최대의 쇠고기 수출국인 브라질은 지난해 전세계 150여개국에  60억달러의 쇠고기를 수출했으며 올해는 80억달러 규모로 늘어날 것으로 예상하고 있으나 이번 구제역 파문으로 수출전략에 상당한 차질을 빚을 것으로 보인다.

====================

 “중국은 돈육 최대 생산국이자 최대 소비국이다”
   ▶ 점차 규모화·집약화로 발전, 전형적인 롤러코스터 장세
   ▶ 새로 변화하고 있는 사양 패턴, 최근 외국 자본 대량 투자
중국의 양돈산업 현황
 
김  문 박사
(주)고려비엔피 양돈담당 

출처 : 피그앤포크 2010년 11월 10일
http://porkboard.or.kr/board/board_view.asp?idx=11375&num=121
http://pignpork.com/subMainView.html?number=1377&xcode=06
 
중국은 돈육 최대 생산국인 동시에 최대 소비국이다. 예전부터 “民以食为天, 豚糧安天下(민이식위천，돈량안천하)”라는 오자성어가 있다．그 뜻은 “백성들은　식량이　하늘처럼　인식되어 있고,　돼지와 식량이　있으면　천하태평이다”라고 풀이된다．또한 “豚为五畜之首(돈위오축지수)“라고도 한다. 그 뜻은 “돼지가 다섯 종류의 가축(돼지, 소, 개, 양, 닭) 중 제일 중요한 가축이다”라는 의미를 갖고 있다. 이것으로 볼 때　돼지는　중국 사회 및　민생에　미치는　영향이　막대한 것을 알 수 있다.
양돈업은 중국의 전통적인 산업으로 노동집약형 산업 중의 하나로서, 중국 실정에 적합한 지속적으로 발전 가능성이 높은 산업이다. 1986년 사료원료 공급 정상화 및 돈육시장 판매정책의 전반적인 개방이 중국 양돈업 발전의 계기가 되었다.
 
1. 양돈업 규모
 
중국 농업부 자료에 의하면, 2010년 7월에 중국 돼지 총 사육두수는 4억4천만두이고, 모돈수는 4천630만두이다. 2009년 중국 전체 육류 생산량은 7,800만톤이고, 이 중에 돈육은 4,879만톤으로 전체 육류 생산량의 62.5%를 차지하며 세계 돈육 생산량의 절반이 된다. 중국의 1인당 돈육 소비량은 39.6kg로서 한국 1인당 20kg 돈육 소비량의 2배 가까이 된다. 중국의 연간 양돈업은 약 124조원 규모이고 전체 축산업 중 48.3%를 차지하고 있다. 2009년 통계자료에 의하면, 전년 모돈수는 4,990만두이고, 연간 출하두수는 6억4천만두이며, 전체 평균 MSY는 12.8두이다(그림 1).
중국에는 현재 4,968개 종돈장이 있고, 모돈은 220만두가 있다. 주요 품종은 서양종인 요크셔, 랜드레이스 및 듀록이고, 우수한 토종품종으로는 태호돈(太湖豚 : 한국 및 외국에서 매산돈이라고 알려진 품종), 금화돈(金華豚), 향돈(香豚) 등이 있다. 최근에 수태돈(蘇太豚), 대하흑돈(大河黑豚) 등 신품종이 개량되었다.

(그림 1) 2000~2009년 중국의 사육두수 및 도축두수(단위 : 백만)    

(그림 2) 주요 양돈 행정구역의 연도별 도축두수
주요 양돈생산지는 장강유역(長江流域), 화북지구(華北地區), 동북지구(東北地區), 양광지구(兩廣地區)이며, 중국 전체 돈육 생산의 80% 이상을 차지하고 있다. 이 중에 장강유역은 42.61%, 화북지구는 22.5%를 차지하고 있다(그림 2). 행정구역으로 보면, 사천성(四川)은 연간 6,000만두 이상을 출하하고 호남성(湖南)은 연간 5,000만두 이상, 하남성(河南)은 연간 4,000만두 이상, 광동성(廣東), 산동성(山東), 호북성(湖北)은 연간 3,000만두 이상을 출하하고 있다. 최근에 중국 주요 곡물산지인 요녕성(遼宁)，길림성(吉林)，흑룡강성(黑龙江)을 포함한 동북지역이 새로운 양돈 생산지로 부상되고 있다(그림 3).
     
 
(그림 3) 주요 양돈 행정구역의 연도별 도축두수 추이(단위 : 백만) 

(그림 4) 2009~2010년 중국의 모돈수 및 사육두수
(모돈수의 단위 : 천 사육두수의 단위 : 10만)
 
2. 현재 중국 양돈시장의 경향 및 특징
 
(1) 점차 규모화·집약화로 발전하고 있다.
현재 중국은 모돈 500두 이상 대군농장 및 기업농이 2,000개가 있으며, 연간 전국 출하두수인 6.6억두의 7~8%를 차지하고 있다. 향후 5년 동안 대군농장 및 기업농의 출하두수는 매년 3% 성장할 것으로 예상되며, 2015년쯤에는 연간 1억두 이상을 출하하여 전국 연간 출하두수의 20% 정도를 차지 할 것으로 예상된다. 연간 50두 이상을 출하하는 농장은 280만개이고, 전국 돈육 생산량의 52% 이상을 차지하고 있다. 중국 개혁개방 이후 농업인구가 85%에서 약 60%로 감소함에 따라 전통 가정식 방식으로 사양되던 사육두수는 예전의 90%에서 35%로 감소하였다. 규모화된 농장의 MSY는 중국 전체 12.8두보다 높은 14.5두이다.
 
(2) 전형적인 롤러코스터 장세이다.
2005년도 연쇄상구균증, 2006년도 “청이병” 또는 “고열병”(중국형 고병원성 PRRS), 써코관련 질병(PCVAD), 돼지열병, 오제스키병 및 구제역 등 악성 전염병과 2005~2006년 연속적인 저돈가 때문에 많은 소규모 양돈농가들이 피해를 보고 양돈업을 떠남으로 인해 2007년도 도축두수는 5.65억두로 2003년도 수준으로 감소하였으며, 그로 인해 돈가가 하늘을 치솟았고, 민생에 큰 파장을 일으키자 정부에서 비상이 걸렸다. 한 마디로 얘기하면 중국 양돈업은 사양가들의 아드레날린을 자극하는 전형적인 롤러코스터 장세이다.
2010년 들어 동일한 장세가 다시 연출되었다. 2007년도 고 돈가 이후 2008~2009년 사육두수가 지속적으로 증가하여 2008년 하반기 부터 돈가가 하락되어 농가가 적자를 보기 시작하였으며, 소규모 농가가 시장에서 다시 도태되었다. 그로 인해 전체 모돈수는 급격히 감소하여 2010년 7월에는 동년 1월에 비해 4.9% 감소를 보였다. 7개월 동안 모돈수가 5% 가까이 큰 폭으로 감소하는 롤러코스터 장세의 특징을 또 다시 보였다.
현재 중국 양돈업은 주식시장과 유사한 느낌이 든다. 중국은 농업인구가 60%로 미국의 2%, 한국의 6%에 비해 매우 높은 수준이고, 전국적으로 소규모 양돈업을 하는 개미농가가 대량 존재한다. 이러한 개미농가들은 돈가를 결정하는 매우 중요한 세력이지만 장기적으로 양돈업을 하는 것이 아니라 단기적으로 이윤을 획득하기 위한 목적이기 때문에, 시세가 좋을 때는 많은 개미농가가 시장에 진입하고 돈가가 좋지 않을 때는 손실을 보고 집단으로 양돈업을 떠나는 특성을 갖고 있다. 참으로 안타까운 실정이다. 한국은 농가당 1,200두 정도로 이미 양돈업이 규모화 되어 있기 때문에 돈가가 안정된 수준에서 공급 상태, 계절 등 시장요소에 따라 소폭 상승 또는 하락하여 사양 및 질병관리만 잘 하면 돈을 버는 아주 안정된 산업이다. 한마디로 중국의 롤러코스터 장세를 해결하는 유일한 방법은 양돈업의 규모화뿐이라고 생각한다(그림 4).
 
(3) 새로 변화하고 있는 사양 패턴
중국 양돈업은 예전부터 세 가지의 주요한 방식이 있다. 첫 번째는 몇 천년 동안 이어온 가구당 몇 두를 사육하는 전통적인 방식이다. 주로 잔반을 이용하여 사육하며 부업으로 양돈을 하는 방식이다. 특히 중국의 최대 양돈 지역인 사천성에서 이런 농가가 많이 존재한다. 두 번째는 몇 십두에서 몇 백두를 사양하는 양돈전업 농가이다. 전문 인력의 자문을 받아 배합사료를 급여하거나 농축사료를 재배합하여 급여하는 방식이다. 세 번째는 모돈 몇 백두 이상인 대군 양돈장이다. 전문 농장장, 농장 수의사, 사양 기술자 및 각 돈사 인력뿐만 아니라 심지어 자체 사료공장을 갖춘 대규모 농장이다.
최근에는 회사농가의 사육방식, 즉 계열화 방식이 중국 실정에 맞는 좋은 사양방식으로 떠오르고 있다. 회사에서 전업 사양농가를 위해 후보돈, 사료, 사양관리 등을 통일하여 출하까지 책임지는 방식이다. 이런 모델로 성공한 대표적인 회사는 광동성에 위치한 중국 최대의 축산회사인 광동성 온씨식품집단유한회사(廣東省溫氏食品集團有限公司)이다. 연간 비육돈 250만두, 육계 6.3억수를 출하하고 종돈장, 곡물 무역, 사료회사, 도축장, 육가공공장, 동물약품회사 등 축산업 전체 산업체인을 갖고 있으며, 연간 매출은 4조원이다. 회사는 시장 리스크를 부담하고 농가는 사양리스크를 감수한다. 연 100만두 출하하는 두 번째의 대련추명산업집단유한회사(大連础明) 및 세 번째의 청도파니아식품유한회사(靑島波尼亚食品)도 동일한 모델로 운영하는 축산업 전문회사이다. 현재 이런 모델은 빠른 속도로 확장되고 있고, 특히 네 번째의 하남성 추영산업(河南雛鷹)은 연간 50% 성장을 하고 있다. 그러나 중국 기업농 Top10의 출하두수는 총 1,000만두 미만이며, 전국의 1% 정도에 불과하여 미국 10대 기업농의 17%에 비해 아주 낮은 수준이다. 중국 농업부는 회사농가 모델이 향후 매년 20% 이상씩 성장할 것으로 예측한다.
 
(4) 양돈업에 외국 자본이 대량으로 투자된다.
2006년 골드만삭스는 4,060억을 투자하여 중국최대 육가공업체인 쌍회(雙匯)의 대주주가 되었고, 또한 미국 AGfeed는 1,670억을 투자하여 중국 남부에 양돈장을 건립하였으며, 연 출하 100만두를 목표로 하고 있다. 태국 CP는 상해의 양돈 및 양계산업에 2조원을 투자하였고, 독일은행은 상해의 한 대군농장에 700억을 투자하여 30% 주식을 매입하였으며, 미국 PIC, 네덜란드 TOPIGS 및 캐나다 HYPOR 등 외국 종돈회사들도 대규모 GGP, GP 농장의 설립을 추진한다. 중국 양돈업이 빠른 속도로 산업화됨에 따라 막대한 외국 자본이 유입되기 시작하였다. 외국 자본가들은 사양뿐만 아니라 원종돈, 사료, 도축, 가공, 유통 등 산업체인 전반을 컨트롤하고 있다. 특히 중요한 원종돈은 완전히 외국자본에 의해 좌지우지되고 있다. 외국 자본의 유입은 중국 양돈업에 충격을 가하겠지만 반대로 양돈인재 양성 및 양돈 산업화에 크게 기여할 것으로 예상된다.  
 
[월간 피그앤포크, 2010년 11월호] 

 ========================

중국의 주요 돼지질병 현황

해외양돈 중국의 주요 돼지질병 현황   - 돈사 개방식 및 반개방식 구조 … 돈군 각종 병원체에 쉽게 노출돼 폐사율 상당히 높아  - 고병원성 PRRS, 돼지열병, PCVAD 등 피해 … 바이러스 혼합감염 및 2차 세균감염 심각   김  문 수의학박사 (주)고려비엔피 양돈담당   중국의 양돈장에서 평균 폐사율은 10∼12%이고, 일부 대규모 양돈장에서는 20% 이상의 폐사율도 보인다. 이는 양돈 선진국 5% 미만의 폐사율에 비해 확연하게 높은 수치이다. 중국은 소규모 양돈농가, 다양한 양돈단지 및 기업농장을 포함한 다양한 규모의 농장이 공존하는 복잡한 사육환경과 중국의 넓은 영토, 다양한 기후조건 및 양돈농가의 예방, 차단방역 인식 부족 등과 관련이 깊지만, 돈사 구조 문제도 심각한 질병 양상을 초래하고 있다. 중국의 대다수 돈사는 개방식 및 반개방식으로 무더운 여름철에 강제 통풍이 불가능하고 돈사 내 적절한 온도 유지가 힘들며, 추운 겨울철에 환기가 부족하여 돈사 내 NH3, CO2, H2S 등 유해가스가 기준 농도 이상으로 높아 돈군이 각종 병원체에 쉽게 노출되어 폐사율이 상당히 높다(사진 1, 2, 3, 4).  ▲ (사진 1) 중국 하남성 모돈 3,000두 농장 ▲ (사진 2) 반개방식 돈사 ▲ (사진 3) 중국 간소성 모돈 100두 농장 ▲ (사진 4) 반개방식 돈사   최근 돼지질병이 복잡하고 다양한 양상으로 나타나고 있으며, 고병원성 PRRS, atypical 돼지열병, 써코관련 질병(PCVAD) 등 막대한 경제적 피해를 일으키는 주요 질병이 으로서 존재한다. 또한 단일 병원체 감염보다는 바이러스 혼합감염 및 2차 세균 감염이 심각한 상황이고, 한국에서는 문제가 적거나 없는 돼지전염성위장염(TGEV), 오제스키병(PRV), 인수공통전염병인 에페리트로준병 (Eperythrozoon suis) 등과 같은 질병도 전국적으로 유행하고 있다. 현재 중국에서의 돼지질병 발생 상황은 아래와 같은 특징을 갖고 있다.   1. 중국의 양돈업 최대 적수는 역시 고병원성 PRRSV … 일명 청이병(靑耳病), 또는 고열병(高熱病)   2006년 5월부터 발생한 고병원성 PRRS는 중국에서 대유행하였고 태풍처럼 양돈산업을 휩쓸었다. 이는 저병원성 PRRSV가 변이 또는 진화된 것으로 확인되었다. 5년이 지난 지금도 고병원성 PRRSV(북미형, CH-1와 JX-1 strain)가 주로 유행되고 있고 높은 폐사율을 특징으로 심각한 문제를 일으키고 있다. 중국형 PRRSV의 높은 병원성이 높다는 것이 실험적으로도 입증되었다. 중국형 PRRSV를 건강한 돼지에게 공격 접종한 결과 전형적인 고병원성 PRRS 소견이 나타났다(사진 5). 고병원성 PRRSV는 광범위하게 조직을 손상시키고 호흡기, 생식기뿐만 아니라 소화기, 면역 및 신경계통에도 타격을 준다(사진 6). 현재 중국에서 새로 문제되는 고병원성 PRRS는 발병 돈군에서 과거 대유행 시기와 동일한 양상을 보인다. 호흡기 증상, 번식장애, 설사 및 신경증상 등 다양한 임상증상, 50∼100%의 높은 이환율, 20∼100%되는 높은 이환율 및 폐사율, 지속적인 고열 등이 특징이다. 고병원성 PRRSV는 폐포 내지 림프절내 대식세포(macrophage), 단핵 대식세포(mononuclear macrophage) 친화성을 지니고 있고, 세포 내에서 분열 및 증식하여 면역계통을 파괴시킴으로써 다른 바이러스와 혼합 또는 2차 세균 감염에 의해 치사율이 높은 급성, 고열성 질병으로 발전된다. 경산 돈 및 후보돈에서도 높은 감염률 및 폐사율을 보인다. 분만사, 이유자돈사, 육성비육사에서 반복·순환 감염되면서 발병한다. (사진 5) 고병원성 PRRS의 임상증상 - (A)발병 초기, (B)고병원성 PRRS가 진행 중인 환돈, (C)신경증상을 보인 환돈, (D)고열로 인한 귀 발적, (E)&(F)파행 및 발열된 환돈, (G)&(H) 폐사된 모돈 (사진 출처 : Plosone, June 2007)   2. 필드에서 써코백신 접종 부족으로 PCVAD가 다발한다.   다국적 동물약품회사뿐만 아니라 국내 회사에서도 써코백신이 개발 및 상용화 되고 있고 필드에서 좋은 반응을 보이고 있다. 또한 대한민국 정부에서는 고가인 써코백신을 관납사업으로 전국 농가에 보급하여 많은 농가가 이로 인한 혜택을 받고 있다. 그러나 중국은 다른 차원이다. 현재 중국 하얼빈 수의과학연구소(哈爾濱獸醫研究所)에서 2010년 9월에 처음으로 써코백신을 개발하였고, 다국적 기업의 써코백신은 판매되고 있으나 매우 높은 가격(Dose 당 : 위안화 : 28.9원 원화 5000원) 때문에 전국 농가에서 광범위한 사용이 힘든 상황이다. 이런 써코백신 공급 부족 및 고병원성 PRRS의 유행 등에 따라 PCVAD 발병이 대규모로 증가하는 상황이다. 써코바이러스는 구조적으로 대다수 소독제에 강한 내성을 갖고 있다는 사실도 PCVAD 병변 증가에 일조하였다. 중국에서 PCV2 감염 일령이 앞당겨지는 경향을 보이고 있으며, 특히 분만사 포유자돈시기부터 감염률이 높다. 또한 병성감정시 폐사돈에서 써코바이러스가 100% 가까이 검출 된다. 현재 중국에서 써코바이러스 type은 PCV2b와 PCV2a가 있고, 절대 우세적인 type은 심한 PCVAD 임상증상과 관련되어 있는 병원성이 더 강한 PCV2b 스트레인이다. 이는 국내 상황과 유사하다.   (사진 6) 고병원성 PRRS의 부검소견 - (A)폐출혈, (B)폐수종, (C)비장경색, (D)신장 출혈 반점, (E)심장 지방변성, (F)간장 출혈 및 황백색 괴사반점, (G)뇌연화 소견, (H)뇌경막 출혈, (I)임파 출혈 (사진 출처 : Plosone, June 2007)   3. Classical보다 Atypical 돼지열병(돼지콜레라)이 산재되었고 큰 피해를 초래하고 있다.   돼지열병 바이러스는 RNA 바이러스지만 PRRSV와 달리 변이 속도가 느린 편에 속한다. 백신 접종이 최선의 예방책이지만 중국 돼지열병 백신의 항원함량 부족, 백신 프로그램 부적절성, 백신접종 불이행(많은 소규모 농가), 면역억압성 질병(PRRSV와 PCV2 등) 감염, 면역억제 작용이 있는 마이코톡신(mycotoxin)으로 오염된 사료 등과 같은 요인에 의한 면역실패에 따라 돼지열병이 산발적으로 발생하고 큰 피해를 초래하였다. 현재 중국 내에서 주로 가토화 비장·림프절 조직백신, 가토화 일반조직백신, 조직배양백신(C strain) 3종류 돼지열병 백신이 사용되고 있으며, 백신 과민반응이 속출하고 있다. 특히 일부 지역에서 초유 전 접종시 심한 과민반응이 나타나 9∼12%의 폐사율을 보인다는 보도가 있었다. 또한 중국 돼지열병 백신의 절대 항원량 부족(다른 나라 백신의 1/4 수준)으로 필드에서 기준 접종량의 4배 내지 10배 이상으로 백신을 접종한다. 유전자 분석 결과 최근 10년간 중국에서 유행하는 돼지열병 바이러스 스트레인의 93.6%는 유럽에서 유래되었고, 극소수 스트레인은 중국 본토 독주인 것으로 판명되었다. 그러나 중국 가토화 백신은 각종 독주에 대한 교차면역이 가능하다. 현재 Atypical 돼지열병이 광범위한 지역에서 산발적으로 발생되어 준임상증상으로 나타나 모돈 번식장애(유산, 조산, 허약 자돈 및 흑자), 신생 자돈 바이러스 감염 및 높은 폐사율을 초래하고 있는 상황이다.   4. 구제역은 중국 남부 및 서부지역에서 많이 발생하고 있다.   2010년 11월 들어 날씨가 추워지면서 중국 동북 요녕성(遼宁)，길림성(吉林)，흑룡강성(黑龙江)에서 구제역이 발생하여 폐사돈이 많이 발생하였으며, 화북지구 (華北地區)인 하남성 (河南)도 구제역 확산 조짐을 보인다. 10월 말까지 중국 농업부의 공식적인 구제역 발생 발표만 17건으로 주로 중국 서·남부지역에서 다발하였으며, 발생한 절대 다수 type은 O형이고, 극소수는 A형이었다. 한국에서 구제역 발생시 반경 3km내 살처분, 3~10km내를 경계지역으로 조치하는 것과 달리 중국에서는 대규모 살처분, 매몰 등 차단방역 조치가 제대로 이행되지 않고 있으며, 1월부터 10월까지 살처분한 돼지가 총 19,000두에 불과하다. 또 다른 문제는 구제역 신고 보상제도이다. 살처분 보상금이 없거나 낮기 때문에 농가에서 신고마저 회피하고 스스로 대처하는 상황이다. 그러므로 피해가 확산되고 바이러스가 지속적으로 각 지역에서 반복적으로 순환되고 있다. 구제역 백신이나 돼지열병 백신은 정부 관납사업으로 공급받아 의무적으로 접종하도록 되어 있다. 구제역 바이러스 7개 혈청형간 교차면역이 되지 않는 특성이 있고, 각 혈청형내 subtype 간에도 부분적 교차면역만 형성되는데, 현재 중국 내에서는 주로 BEI 방식으로 불활화시킨 사독백신과 펩타이드(Synthetic peptide) 백신 2종류가 사용되고 있고 항원은 모두 O type이다. 또한 구제역 백신의 부작용이 다른 백신보다 심하고 항원량도 외국 제품에 비해 부족하기 때문에 농가에서 접종을 기피하고 있다.   5. 세균성 질병 발생도 증가하는 추세이다.   세균성 질병도 과거에 비해 증가하는 추세이다. 2009년에는 글래서씨병를 일으키는 Haemophilus parasuis가 고병원성 PRRSV 감염 후 2차 감염 원인체로서 중국 양돈업에 큰 경제적 피해를 입혔다. 현재 중국에서 주로 문제되는 연쇄상구균은 2 type(혈청형)이고 대량 폐사를 초래할 뿐만 아니라 사람에도 감염을 일으킨다. 1998∼1999년 강소성(江蘇)에서 돼지 연쇄상구균 2형 유행으로 25명이 감염되고 14명이 사망하였다. 중국 상해 동물질병시험소의 자료에 의하면, 2009년 의뢰된 가검물 중 병원균 양성률은 82%로서 주로 Haemophilus parasuis, 마이코플라스마, 흉막폐렴균, Eperythrozoon suis, 살모넬라균 등이다. 이는 면역을 억압하는 원발성 바이러스성 질병의 발병 증가 때문인 것으로 보인다.     6. 여러 병원체의 혼합감염이 최근 중국의 주요 질병 패턴이다.   여러 가지 병원체 혼합감염은 최근 몇 년간 중국 돼지질병의 주요한 패턴이다. 특히 면역억압을 일으키는 바이러스성(PRRSV, PCV2, PRV, 돼지열병바이러스) 질병의 혼합감염은 높은 이환율와 폐사율을 초래한다. 이 중에 PRRSV와 PCV2 혼합감염, PRRSV와 돼지열병 혼합감염, PRRSV와 PRV 혼합감염, PCV2와 PRV 혼합감염, PRRSV와 PCV2·PRV·돼지인플루엔자 간 혼합감염이 다발하여 폐사율을 높이는 증폭제 역할을 하고 있다. 이 중에서도 PRRSV와 PCV2 혼합감염은 높은 발생률을 보이고 있다. 하남성 자료에 의하면, 2006년 고병원성 PRRS 사례 중에 46%가 돼지열병 바이러스 양성을 보였고, 2008년에는 62%가 양성으로 나타났다. 돼지열병은 고병원성 PRRSV 뒤에 그림자 킬러로서 심한 고열병을 일으켰다. 또한 오제스키는 전국적으로 산재되어 39.5%의 양돈장에서 항원양성을 보였다. 오제스키는 PRRSV, PCV2와의 혼합감염 빈도가 비교적 높아 다중 면역억압을 형성하여 더 큰 피해를 발생시켰다. 이 외에도 마이코플라스마가 원발성 병원체로서 거의 중국 모든 양돈장에 존재하여 다른 바이러스성 병원체와 빈번히 혼합감염을 일으킨다. 글래서씨병, 연쇄상구균증, 에페리트로준병, 파스튜렐라성폐렴, 흉막폐렴 등은 바이러스 감염 후 2차적으로 혼합감염을 주로 일으키는 주요 세균성 질병이다. 심지어 병성감정시 한 폐사돈에서 5종류의 병원성 바이러스 및 세균이 검출되기도 한다. 여러 가지 병원체 혼합감염으로 심한 임상증상 및 폐사율을 보이고 있기 때문에 질병 모니터링이 어려워지고 질병 예방 및 치료에도 더 큰 위협이 되고 있다.   [월간 피그앤포크, 2011년 1월호]

Revealed: The very unappetising truth about McDonald’s chicken meals (Jamie Oliver, look away now)

By Tom Rawstorne

출처 : [데일리메일(영국)] Last updated at 2:02 PM on 15th May 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278495/The-unappetising-truth-McDonalds-chicken-meals.html?ITO=1490

A chicken squats in a shed the size of a football pitch somewhere in the outback of Brazil. And it’s not alone.

One of tens of thousands, each bird is allowed the floor space equivalent to a sheet of A4 paper and will live for just 40 days before it hits its genetically-engineered slaughter weight. That’s if it doesn’t perish along the way.

Five per cent or so will be unable to cope with the conditions and die even before then.

Those that survive will be plucked and butchered in an industrial process the like of which this planet has never before seen.

Every year billions of chickens will live and die in this way. Of course, South America is a long way away. But your local McDonald’s is not. And that is where a significant proportion of this intensively reared meat will eventually end up.

McChicken Sandwich: Much of McDonalds’ poultry comes from Brazil, where the animals live in cramped conditions

Of all the chicken churned out by the fast-food chain – the equivalent of 30 million birds a year – 60 per cent is imported frozen from Brazil. A further nine per cent comes from Thailand and 30 per cent from Holland

A quick bit of arithmetic reveals just how much of the chicken sold in the fast-food giant’s British restaurants is reared in this country: that’s right, just one per cent.

It’s a figure that’s never before been published, and it will surprise and disturb many. After all, in recent years McDonald’s has effectively relaunched itself as a chain that cares about the provenance of its food and its relationship with the nation’s farmers.

There have been television adverts featuring bucolic rural scenes, paper tray mats that introduce the customer to the chain’s suppliers and a website that boasts of lovingly nurtured, homegrown spuds.

The beef they use is sourced entirely from British and Irish farms, the eggs free-range, the milk organic and the coffee beans Rainforest Alliance-certified.

And, clearly, it is something that chimes with the public. During the past four years, McDonald’s UK had added £465million to its sales, while in 2009 there was a double-digit increase in like-for-like sales as customer visits rose year on year. In terms of growth, Britain is leading the way across McDonald’s international empire.

Impressive stuff, and it’s not just the public who are reacting well. This month, the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver publicly gave his backing to the chain.

‘The quality of the beef, they only sell free-range eggs, they only sell organic milk, their ethics and recycling is being improved and improved,’ he said in an interview. ‘And I can’t even believe I’m telling you that McDonald’s UK has come a long way, but actually, it probably puts quite a lot of gastro-pubs to shame, the amount of work they’re doing in the back end.

‘Also, they’ve just had their best commercial year in four years, so they’re proving that being commercial and caring can work. Actually, it’s the future.’

But what – and it is a very big ‘what’ – about the chicken, the dish which one suspects many customers seeking a healthier option would generally go for? What aspect of these birds’ life cycle, of the impact their production has on the planet, could possibly be described as ‘caring’?

More to the point, is it something about which Jamie Oliver or the millions of customers who eat in McDonald’s every week are even aware?

A decade or two ago, people went to McDonald’s for one thing and one thing alone: a beefburger.

Today, a glance at the menu shows just how much the fast-food chain – and the nation’s tastes – has changed. Forget the Big Mac, it is chicken that is now equally big business.

On the menu there is the Chicken Legend burger, £2.99, the McChicken sandwich, £2.19, Chicken McNuggets, £2.19 for six, or £2.49 for nine, and Mayo Chicken, 99p. The toasted deli sandwiches include chicken and bacon, £2.99, chicken salad, £2.99, and sweet chilli chicken, £2.99. Then there are the salad options: crispy chicken and bacon, £3.29, and grilled chicken and bacon, £3.59.

Supportive: The TV chef Jamie Oliver has publicly given his backing to McDonalds

Finally, on the recently introduced Little Tasters menu, there is the chicken caesar snack wrap, £1.49, and the salsa snack wrap, £1.49.

The growth of this side of the McDonald’s menu is in no way accidental. The British perceive chicken as a healthy alternative to red meat and are eating ever-increasing amounts of it. Upping its presence on the McDonald’s menu was a ‘no-brainer’ that has been integral to the company’s success.

‘I suspect we are taking business from some of the chicken restaurants because we keep extending the number of chicken-based items on our menus,’ admitted Steve Easterbrook, chief executive of McDonald’s UK, as he explained the company’s success in the midst of a recession.

British-born Mr Easterbook has been praised for turning around the chain’s prospects in this country.

The company reached its nadir in 2002 when McDonald’s globally reported the first losses in its history. Here, things were especially bad.

Having been hit in the late 1990s by the outbreak of mad cow disease, public sentiment in Britain had also been turned against the chain by the long-running ‘McLibel’ trial, in which the firm spent £10million suing the activists Dave Morris and Helen Steel for what it said were defamatory claims made in leaflets the couple produced about McDonald’s.

Negativity among British consumers was further enhanced by Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock’s 2004 film that documented the drastic effect an exclusively McDonald’s diet had on his physical and psychological well-being.

To counter this, Mr Easterbook set about introducing a more ‘local’ approach to the business, listening to what British customers wanted rather than imposing an Americanised formula.

This localist approach in part centred on responding to consumers’ concerns about the quality and the origins of the food sold. Ever since, McDonald’s marketing strategy has focused heavily on the restaurant’s use of home-reared beef, free-range eggs and organic milk.

Undeniably these have all been changes for the good, and Jamie Oliver’s comments have to be seen in that context.

But having assumed the moral high ground, its customers will no doubt be all the more surprised to learn that when it comes to its ever-growing range of chicken products there has been no such transformation.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is something McDonald’s largely glosses over.

While its promotional literature makes great play of the fact that its beef is ‘sourced from over 16,000 British and Irish farms’, when it comes to chicken, the meat’s origin is left deliberately vague.

There is no mention on the company’s main website, nor in its restaurants, as to where it comes from – let alone the fact that so much of it is imported, frozen, from thousands of miles away.

‘The only meat we use across our entire chicken range is succulent chicken breast meat,’ its website states.

As for its suppliers, it says that they raise the chicken to high standards and that the meat can be traced back to the farm from which it originates. Wherever that may be.

Of course, McDonald’s is not alone in importing chicken from Brazil and Thailand, nor in using intensively reared chicken. Ninety-five per cent of the 850 million chickens bred for meat in this country are intensively reared, while similar quantities are imported from abroad. High Street chains that buy in frozen chicken from around the world include Pret A Manger, Subway and KFC.

But it’s the way in which McDonald’s has re-branded itself that opens it up to questions about the sourcing of its chicken.

Patrick Holden is director of the Soil Association, the body that certifies organic food in the UK.

‘I think people associate McDonald’s with having made an effort to make the beef better, and I think they assume that the chicken also mainly comes from UK farms and that it is probably free-range,’ he says. ‘We, the public, are ignorant, and it is our ignorance that the food companies are capitalising on. Until the public ask difficult questions, they can get away with it.

Golden Arches: McDonalds has relaunched itself as a chain that cares about the provenance of its food – but what about its chicken? (File picture)

‘It would be better for McDonald’s to source their chicken from the UK rather than Brazil and elsewhere. Then, after that, they have to go one step further and to source it free-range.

‘The inconvenient truth about chicken is that we have become addicted to cheap white meat and, in the long term, the addiction is completely unsustainable economically and in terms of land use.’

It is a point echoed by Kirtana Chandrasekaran, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth.

‘If you are selling a chicken burger for £1 or however much it is, then you have to understand that someone is paying for it either in environmental terms or farming terms; it is a case of buy cheap now, pay later.’

And McDonald’s makes no bones about the fact that the reason it buys chicken from abroad is because it is cheaper. ‘British consumers prefer to eat chicken breast meat, which is why now the only meat we use in our chicken menu items is chicken breast,’ said a spokeswoman.

‘This consumer demand means that chicken breast meat commands a premium price in the UK compared to some European countries and other parts of the world.

‘As far as we are aware, current UK demand for chicken breast meat outstrips domestic supply. Therefore, in order for us to meet our customer demands for quality and price, we now source the vast majority of our chicken from abroad.’

But McDonald’s insists that even though the meat is imported, the chickens are raised in a way that equals or exceeds the welfare standards required for intensively reared chickens in the UK.

In practical terms, this means that the maximum stocking density cannot exceed 38kg per square metre – the equivalent of somewhere between 15 and 18 chickens. They also insist that the flocks are physically inspected several times a day and that sick or dead birds are immediately removed.

Of course, such strictures will be seen as mere window- dressing by those who believe that chickens should be bred in a less intensive way.

Beyond those arguments, there are other issues specific to the importation of chicken meat from abroad, particularly Brazil.

One of the world’s agricultural super-powers, the South American nation became the largest exporter of chicken meat in 2004. By 2020, industry officials hope Brazilian exports will represent around 50 per cent of the total world market.

According to the Brazilian Chicken Producers and Exporters Association (ABEF) 3.63 million tons of chicken meat from some five billion chickens were exported in 2009.

Sourcing chicken from there is cheaper for British companies than using UK meat because production costs are lower. Wages for workers are typically 700 reais a month – that is about £250 a month or £3,000 a year.

Human rights activists and union leaders complain of poor working conditions within the industry, claiming that thousands of workers are made to perform repetitive tasks such as stripping chickens while in temperatures of around 10C (50F).

Equally important in keeping costs down is the availability and price of the soy and corn on which the chickens are raised. Environmentalists warn that food that could be used to feed people is instead being diverted into the production of chicken destined for restaurant plates in richer, developed countries.

It has also been alleged that the deforestation of the Amazon has intensified because of the need to grow more crops to feed more chickens.

Last night, asked by the Mail to explain the differences between its sourcing policies for beef and chicken, a McDonald’s spokeswoman insisted that the decision to buy the vast majority of its chicken from overseas ‘was so that we could keep offering our customers great value without compromising on quality’.

Ironically enough, Jamie Oliver has been a vocal critic of the intensive rearing of chickens.

Two years ago, in his Channel 4 show Jamie’s Fowl Dinners, he branded the practice as ‘morally wrong’ and called for the public to switch to birds that enjoy a better standard of life.

All of which makes you wonder whether – when he discovers the truth about where McDonald’s chicken comes from – he will be quite so effusive in his praise for the company’s ‘healthy’ new image.