adopted by farmers because of the lower complexity of the production system and the reduction in prices per unit.
     Most countries of the region still face an unresolved conflict between supporters of biotechnology and its products (mainly those associated with public and private agricultural research institutions) and stakeholders linked to NGOs and other social and political movements who oppose the spread of genetically modified organisms. This has curtailed the use and even the production of biotechnology innovations in certain countries.
     In the aforementioned study by Castro et al., (2005), basic and applied research in nanotechnology was deemed as of the lowest strategic importance; in recent years, the advances and impacts of these new frontiers of knowledge were assessed to be of medium to low significance in the region. For biotechnology, the assessment figures were slightly higher, but did not exceed the category of medium importance. An interpretation of this result reaffirms the point made previously regarding the slow rate of uptake in the use and production of biotechnological innovations in LAC.
     It should also be noted that innovation not only had an impact of the productivity of agricultural units but has also enabled the development of many inputs and productive management technologies that are environmentally friendly, like crop rotation, biological inocula, and natural fertilizers.
     With regard to the regulatory bias of science and technology, there are asymmetries between the knowledge of users, producers, and generators of innovation. In LAC we repeatedly find that new technologies are beyond the reach of the very populations for whom they were generated, for a variety of reasons. This problem, in turn, is connected to another issue mentioned in the studies, i.e., the isolation of the various innovation systems due to lack of participation and linkages between all the actors involved in the innovation
process, which generates a regulatory bias (Arocena and Sutz, 1999).
     Regarding the notion of an innovation system as a political objective, data gathered through several recent surveys on industrial innovation in different countries indicate that national spending on innovation is fairly low. For this reason, private companies carry out internal R&D activities, even though these may be of an informal character (Arocena and Sutz, 2002).
     If we analyze the particular case of innovation systems in MERCOSUR, these respond to the region’s current economic situation. In this context, it should be emphasized that numerous transnational corporations based in MERCOSUR delegate innovation activities to their parent companies. Although we observe a growing trend regarding cooperation for research purposes, the technological divide between Latin American countries and industrialized nations is still very wide. Hence much of the innovative technology in the region comes from technological advances that arrive to LAC through inputs, mostly seeds and agrochemicals, produced and distributed by multinationals.
     According to Lundvall (1985), innovation stems from a convergence of technical opportunities and user demand, which suggests the importance of citizens’ participation in research processes—an issue that should be considered by AKST system institutions in the design of innovation systems.

It is also important to consider the systemic nature of innovation, taking into account all related processes and their interdependence.

2.5.3 On consumers
There were, as of 2000, approximately 520 million consumers in Latin America and the Caribbean. According to figures from the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, disseminated in the studies World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2001 Revision (Perez, 2005), this population grew significantly since 1985, by around 120 million people (they were 401 million in 1985, 441 million in 1990, and 481 million in 1995). These consumers, located both in urban and rural areas, represent a plethora of demands for goods and services.      Consumer-oriented processes have traditionally had little influence. However, even in cases where end consumers were not the main priority of research, they have indirectly benefited from the other priorities that have been set, that led for example to significant reductions in food prices. Over the period in question, for instance, the population benefited from decreases in the prices of basic foods of almost 70%. This occurred due to a decrease in production costs due to increases in productivity obtained as a result of agricultural research efforts and innovation processes. Consequently, end consumers benefited even though research priorities were more concerned with farm performance and productivity (Figure 2-4).
     Consumer segmentation leads to the generation of supply- side production alternatives. Over time, these develop into different knowledge, science and agricultural technology initiatives. In the case of the rural sector, this translates into, and is materialized in, agricultural innovation and technology transfer processes (Jacobs 1991; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 2000).

At the same time, advances achieved by agricultural science and technology have sometimes been questioned, as in the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or practices that are believed to cause undesirable effects such a climate change or soil contamination and erosion (Beca, 1988; Sartori and Mazzoleni, 2005; Duarte et al., 2006). As part of this analysis, it is important to emphasize that new spaces for discussion and feedback are emerging between the so-called “responsible consumers” sector and producers,

as part of a general policy to ensure compliance with standards and principles related to intellectual property, certification mechanisms, fair trade strategies, denominations of origin, and ecolabelling.

2.5.4 Social aspects
The modernization of Latin America’s agricultural sector sharpened the contradictions between the modern and traditional sectors. On the one hand, it led to poverty for the social groups who were displaced towards large urban centers and border zones or who joined the transborder migratory flows. At the same time, it produced environmental impacts and caused the large-scale destruction of natural resources and the erosion of traditional knowledge.