ecaef.org · web viewhigher household incomes through bt cotton adoption have also caused...
TRANSCRIPT
Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security
Matin Qaim
University of GoettingenDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Rural DevelopmentPlatz der Goettinger Sieben 5, 37073 Goettingen, GermanyPhone: +49-551-39-24806Fax: +49-551-39-24823Email: [email protected]
Abstract:
Ending hunger in all its forms by 2030, as stipulated in the United Nations’ Sustainable
Development Goals, will require different types of approaches, including the development and
use of new agricultural technologies. In this connection, the potential role of genetically modified
(GM) crops is debated controversially. The first GM crops were commercialized in the mid-
1990s. In 2017, around 13% of the global arable land was cultivated with GM crops, mostly
endowed with herbicide-tolerance and insect-resistance traits. This paper provides an overview of
GM crop applications with a particular focus on developing countries. Existing studies show that
the adoption of GM crops has contributed to productivity increases, household income gains, and
poverty reduction in the small farm sector. There is also evidence of environmental and health
benefits through reductions in the use of chemical pesticides, although the effects vary. Several
new GM technologies – such as drought-tolerant, enhanced nitrogen-use-efficient, and
biofortified crops – are currently tested; they could also produce substantial benefits. In the public
biotech debate, such benefits are often underrated, while risks are overrated. Combined with
other technologies, GM crops could contribute to pro-poor sustainable development and food
security. Genome-edited crops could further increase the efficiency of crop breeding, even
without having to transfer genes across species boundaries. Policy challenges are also discussed.
1
Introduction
A genetically modified (GM) crop is a plant used for agricultural purposes into which one or
several genes coding for desirable traits have been inserted through the process of genetic
engineering. These genes may stem not only from the same or other plant species, but also from
organisms totally unrelated to the recipient crop. The basic techniques of plant genetic
engineering were developed in the early-1980s, and the first GM crops became commercially
available in the mid-1990s. Since then, GM crop adoption has increased very rapidly. In 2017,
GM crops were grown on 13% of the global arable land (James 2017).
The crop traits targeted through genetic engineering are not completely different from those
pursued by conventional breeding. However, because genetic engineering allows for the direct
gene transfer across species boundaries, some traits that were previously difficult or impossible to
breed can now be developed with relative ease. Two categories of GM traits can be distinguished.
First, crops with improved agronomic traits, such as better resistance to pests or higher tolerance
to different types of climate stress. Second, crops with improved quality traits, such as higher
nutrient contents of food products.
The potentials of GM crops are manifold. Against the background of a dwindling natural resource
base, productivity increases in global agriculture are important to ensure sufficient availability of
food and other raw materials for a growing population. GM crops can also bring about
environmental benefits. Furthermore, new seed technologies can play an important role for rural
income growth and poverty alleviation in developing countries. Finally, nutritionally enhanced
crops could help improve the health status of consumers (Qaim 2009, Barrows et al. 2014).
In spite of these potentials, the development and use of GM crops has aroused significant
opposition (Gilbert 2013). The major concerns are related to potential environmental and health
2
risks, but there are also fears about adverse social implications. For instance, some believe that
GM technology could undermine traditional knowledge systems in developing countries. Given
the increasing privatization of crop improvement research and the proliferation of intellectual
property rights (IPRs), there are also concerns about the potential monopolization of seed markets
and exploitation of smallholder farmers (Stone 2010).
Concerning environmental and health risks, 30 years of risk research and over 20 years of
practical experience with GM crops have shown that the worries are unsubstantiated. Every new
technology may create certain problems if not used responsibly. But in this respect GM crops are
not different from other agricultural technologies. The available evidence suggests that GM crops
are not more risky than conventionally bred crops (NAS 2016).
Genes that were newly introduced to the crop plants may outcross to other plants of the same
species through pollen flow. But such outcrossing of genes through pollen flow is a normal
phenomenon also in conventional crops. Whether the outcrossing of genes and plant traits may
possibly create environmental problems needs to be assessed case by case, regardless of the
underlying breeding process. Hence, risk assessment should be based on the products of
breeding, not the breeding process. In other words, regulatory procedures that require very
different tests for GM crops than for conventionally bred crops, as observed in most countries,
are not scientifically justified (EASAC 2013).
Concerning the social implications of GM crops, a broader array of aspects needs to be
considered. This paper reviews the available research on the adoption and socioeconomic impacts
of GM crops with a particular focus on developing countries. Institutional constraints and related
policy challenges are also briefly discussed.
3
Worldwide adoption of GM crops
The commercial application of GM crops began in the mid-1990s. Since then, the technology has
spread rapidly around the world, both in industrialized and developing countries (Figure 1). For
the last few years, the area grown with GM crops in developing countries has been larger than the
area in industrialized countries. In 2017, GM crops were planted on 190 million hectares (ha),
which is equivalent to 13% of the total worldwide cropland. These 190 million ha were grown by
18 million farmers in 24 countries (James 2017). The countries where GM crops are currently
commercially cultivated are shown in Figure 2. Most of these countries are located in North and
South America, followed by Asia. In Europe and Africa, very few countries have adopted GM
crops, which is due to limited public acceptance in these regions and unfavorable regulatory
environments.
Figure 1: Development of the worldwide area grown with GM crops (1996-2017) (Source: Author’s presentation based on data from ISAAA 2018)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Mill
ion
ha
TotalIndustrialized countriesDeveloping countries
4
Figure 2: Countries that cultivated GM crops in 2017 (Note: Countries with GM crop applications are shown in red color. Source: Author’s presentation based on data from ISAAA 2018)
The countries with the biggest shares of the total GM crop area in 2017 were the USA (39%),
Brazil (26%), and Argentina (12%), followed by Canada (7%), India (6%), Paraguay (2%),
Pakistan (2%) China (2%), and a number of other countries.
In spite of the widespread international use of GM crops, the portfolio of available crop-trait
combinations is still very limited. While many different traits were developed and tested, most of
them were not yet approved for commercial use because of lengthy regulatory procedures and
cautious policy attitudes. So far, only a few concrete GM technologies have been
commercialized. The dominant technology is herbicide tolerance (HT) in soybeans, which is
mostly used in countries of North and South America. In 2017, HT soybeans accounted for
almost 80% of total worldwide soybean production.
5
Other widely-used GM crops include insect-resistant (IR) maize and cotton. The insect-resistance
trait is based on genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which control
stemborers, rootworms, and cotton bollworms. Especially Bt cotton is grown in many different
parts of the world, including by smallholder farmers. In 2017, India had the largest Bt cotton
area, followed by the USA, Pakistan, China, and various other developing countries.
Impacts of GM crop adoption
Over the last 20 years, a large number of studies have been conducted, analyzing the effects of
GM crop adoption on yield, pesticide use, farm profits, and other outcomes in different parts of
the world. A meta-analysis has evaluated these existing studies, finding that GM crop adoption
benefits farmers in most situations (Klümper and Qaim 2014). On average, GM technology has
increased crop yields by 22% and reduced chemical pesticide use by 37% (Table 1). GM seeds
are usually more expensive than conventional seeds, but the additional seed costs are
compensated through savings in chemical pest control and higher revenues from crop sales.
Average profit gains for adopting farmers are 68%.
Table 1: Mean impacts of GM crop adoption in % (results from a meta-analysis) (Source: Author’s presentation based on data from Klümper and Qaim 2014)
Outcome variable All GM crops Insect-resistant crops (IR) Herbicide-tolerant crops (HT)
Yield 21.6 a 24.9 a 9.3 b
Pesticide quantity -36.9 a -41.7 a 2.4Pesticide cost -39.2 a -43.4 a -25.3 a
Farmer profit 68.2 a 68.8 a 64.3a statistically significant at 1% level. b statistically significant at 5% level.
However, a breakdown of GM crop impacts by modified trait reveals a few notable differences
(Table 1). While significant reductions in pesticide costs are observed for HT and IR crops, only
6
IR crops lead to a consistent reduction in pesticide quantity (pesticides, as defined here, include
insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and all other chemical pest control agents). Such disparities
are expected, because the two technologies are quite different. IR crops protect themselves
against certain insect pests, so that spraying insecticides can be reduced. HT crops are not
protected against pests but against broad-spectrum chemical herbicides (mostly glyphosate),
which can facilitate weed control. While HT crops have reduced herbicide quantity in some
situations, they have contributed to notable increases in the use of broad-spectrum herbicides
elsewhere. The savings in pesticide costs for HT crops in spite of higher quantities can be
explained by the fact that broad-spectrum herbicides are often much cheaper than the selective
herbicides that were used before. Average yield effects are also higher for IR than for HT crops.
The meta-analysis also differentiated between impacts in different countries, finding that farmers
in developing countries benefit more from GM crop adoption than farmers in industrialized
countries. The reasons for significantly higher average yield and farmer profit gains in
developing countries are twofold. First, farmers operating in tropical and subtropical climates
often suffer from more considerable pest damage that can be reduced through GM crop adoption.
Hence, effective yield gains tend to be higher than for farmers operating in temperate zones.
Second, most GM crops are not patented in developing countries, so that GM seed prices are
lower than in industrialized countries, where patent protection is much more common (Klümper
and Qaim 2014).
Beyond the benefits for farmers, GM crops have also contributed to positive environmental and
health effects (Barrows et al. 2014). Reductions in the use chemical pesticides through IR crops
have led to benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and to a reduction in the number of
farmer pesticide poisoning incidences. HT crops have facilitated the adoption of reduced-tillage
7
practices, thus curbing erosion problems and greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, without the
productivity gains from GM crops, around 25 million hectares of additional farmland would have
to be cultivated globally, in order to maintain current agricultural production levels (Qaim 2016).
As is well known, farmland expansion into natural habitats is an important contributing factor to
biodiversity loss and climate change.
However, especially the widespread use of HT crops in North and South America is also
associated with certain environmental problems. Higher profits and easier weed control have
induced many farmers to narrow down their crop rotations, now often growing HT crops as
monocultures. This has contributed to resistance development in weed populations and has also
increased other pest and disease problems, sometimes leading to higher pesticide use (Fernandez-
Cornejo et al. 2014). These environmental problems are not inherent to GM technology; they are
rather the result of the inappropriate use of GM crops. Improved seeds should never be
considered a substitute for good agronomic practice, but should be integrated into sound and
locally-adapted crop rotations and agricultural systems.
GM crops and smallholder farmers
New agricultural technologies that are suitable also for smallholder farmers are known to have
large potentials to reduce poverty and promote broader rural development. Hence, it is important
to understand in how far GM crops can be used successfully by smallholder farmers. Again, it is
important to differentiate by crops and traits. HT soybeans have so far been used primarily by
relatively large farms in North and South America. Soybeans are not much grown by
smallholders. Moreover, weed control in the small farm sector is typically conducted manually,
so that adopting HT seeds would not make much sense. This underlines that not every GM crop-
trait combination will be beneficial in the small farm sector.
8
However, insect-resistant Bt crops are widely grown by smallholder farmers in countries like
India, China, Pakistan, and South Africa. The example of Bt cotton in India is particularly
interesting, because anti-biotech activists repeatedly claimed that GM seeds have ruined
smallholder cotton growers in India. However, these claims were shown to be wrong (Gilbert
2013). Smallholder cotton growers in India have rapidly adopted Bt cotton because the
technology proved to be very beneficial. Within less than 10 years after its first
commercialization, more than 90% of the cotton growers in India had switched to GM varieties.
Higher yields and profits have contributed to significant welfare gains in smallholder households.
Estimates with long-term survey data suggest that the adoption of Bt cotton has raised farm
household living standards by 18% on average (Kathage and Qaim 2012).
Higher household incomes through Bt cotton adoption have also caused improvements in dietary
quality and nutrition. GM technology adoption has reduced food insecurity among Indian cotton
growers by 15-20% (Qaim and Kouser 2013). Beyond the cotton growers themselves, other rural
households benefit from growth in the cotton sector through additional employment. This is
particularly relevant for poor landless families, who often belong to the poorest of the poor in
India. Two-thirds of all rural income gains from Bt cotton adoption in India accrue to poor people
with incomes of less than 2 dollars a day (Qaim 2016).
Similar to these results from India, Bt crop adoption has also contributed to poverty reduction and
other social benefits in the small farm sectors of China, Pakistan, South Africa, and several other
developing countries (Smyth et al. 2014).
9
Possible future GM crop applications
As discussed, the cultivation of GM crops has increased rapidly during the last 20 years.
However, of the 190 million ha under GM crops in 2017, over 95% were grown with only four
different crop species (soybean, maize, cotton, and canola) and two modified traits (herbicide
tolerance and insect resistance). This relatively narrow focus of GM crop applications has
different reasons. One reason is that many traits are more complex to develop than herbicide
tolerance or insect resistance, which are both coded by only one single gene. Most tolerances to
climate stress factors and many relevant quality traits are coded by multiple genes, making the
process of genetic engineering more complex. However, a more important reason for the narrow
crop and trait focus so far is the low public acceptance of GM technology and, coupled with this,
the complex regulatory procedures. Several GM technologies were extensively tested but not yet
approved for commercial use, because of overly precautious regulators, highly politicized policy
processes, and extensive lobbying efforts of anti-biotech activist groups (Paarlberg 2008).
Public attitudes towards GM crops differ regionally, as do related regulatory procedures. For
instance, in North and South America, societal views and regulatory approaches for GM crops
are generally more favorable than in Europe. However, international agreements require that new
GM crop applications are approved in importing countries as well, meaning that the regulatory
hurdles in Europe also hamper biotech developments in other parts of the world (Qaim 2016).
The complex and politicized processes of biosafety and food safety regulation do not only delay
the final approval and commercialization, but also the development of new GM crops, as even
field trials need to be approved case by case. When such approvals are not issued on time, or
when field trials are vandalized, as happened repeatedly in the past, GM crop and trait
developments can be seriously delayed or thwarted altogether. Thus, the public opposition could
10
well contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy: some of the public resistance is based on the
argument that the promises of GM crops have been oversold, because so far only very few
concrete technologies are actually available on the market.
In the following, a few selected new GM crop applications with particular relevance for
developing countries are discussed. These technologies are at advanced stages in the research
pipeline and were already tested successfully in the field. Studies suggest that the potential
benefits of these and other new GM crop applications could be substantial (Qaim 2016).
Drought tolerance. Drought is a serious issue in many developing countries that can have
severe economic, social, and humanitarian consequences. Climate change is an additional
challenge, as it is expected to increase water stress, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and
South Asia. Several public and private sector research organizations are working towards
improving the water efficiency of important staple food crops, such as rice, wheat, and
maize. This involves both conventional breeding and genetic engineering. A first drought-
tolerant GM maize hybrid was recently commercially released in the USA; the same
technology is now further developed for use in Africa and was already field-tested in
Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda. Similar projects to develop drought-tolerant varieties
are also underway in other parts of the world, including in Asia. Drought-tolerant varieties
could significantly increase and stabilize crop yields under arid and semi-arid conditions.
Nutrient use efficiency. Plants require various mineral nutrients for healthy growth and
production. Limitation in any of the required nutrients reduces crop yield and quality and
also makes the plant more susceptible to pests and diseases. In intensive agricultural
production, the use of large quantities of mineral fertilizer is routine practice, but comes at
a significant economic and ecological cost. A major problem is that the nutrient efficiency
11
of crop plants is low. Average nitrogen use efficiency in cereals is below 50 percent,
implying that the plants can only use less than half of the nitrogen fertilizers applied.
Increasing nutrient use efficiency of plants through improved genetics could be a
fundamental step towards more sustainable agricultural production. Ongoing research is
focusing in particular on increasing nitrogen and phosphate use efficiencies in rice, wheat,
maize, and other crops. In high-input systems, such technologies will allow reductions in
fertilizer use without jeopardizing yields. In low-input production systems, where plants
suffer from insufficient nutrient availability, the same technologies could contribute to
significant yield increases. Especially in Africa the use of fertilizer is very low, due to
knowledge, infrastructure, and financial constraints.
Biofortified crops. Micronutrient malnutrition is a widespread problem in many
developing countries, with serious negative health implications. The prevalence is
especially high among the poor, whose diets are usually dominated by cheap staple foods.
Biofortification is a micronutrient intervention that involves breeding staple food crops
for higher mineral and vitamin contents to reduce micronutrient malnutrition among poor
consumers. Biofortification does not always involve genetic engineering. Several
initiatives use conventional breeding to increase micronutrient contents in different crop
species. However, with GM approaches higher levels of micronutrients can usually be
achieved. Moreover, GM techniques can help to introduce nutrients that are not found in
the edible parts of certain crop species or their wild relatives. A case in point is the
Golden Rice project, where GM approaches were used to increase the provitamin A
content in rice. After many years of testing, Golden Rice will likely be commercialized
for the first time in 2018 or 2019 in the Philippines and other countries of Asia. Studies
suggest that Golden Rice – if widely produced and consumed – will bring about large
12
nutrition and health benefits, especially for poor population segments that cannot afford
more expensive sources of vitamin A (Qaim 2016).
Institutional and policy challenges
Most GM crops available so far were commercialized by private companies. The evidence
demonstrates that proprietary GM crops can have positive development effects. Nevertheless, the
small farm sector will hardly be served comprehensively by private multinationals alone. One
concern is related to patents and seed prices. Most of the existing GM crops are not patented in
developing countries, but this may potentially change in the future. Strengthening IPRs in
developing countries can have advantages and disadvantages. Especially in the least-developed
countries, it could entail undesirable social consequences, because higher seed prices would
reduce technology accessibility for smallholders.
Beyond seed prices, the dominance of multinationals also has implications for the type of GM
crops that emerge. The private sector develops technologies primarily for big lucrative markets.
While technically feasible, it is unlikely that multinationals will commercialize GM innovations
for niche markets in developing countries, where market failures are commonplace. Such
research gaps will have to be addressed by the public sector.
But also when suitable GM crops are developed and commercialized, benefits for poor farmers
and consumers will not occur automatically. A conducive institutional environment is important
to promote wide and equitable access. Well-functioning input and output markets will spur the
process of innovation adoption. Unfortunately, in many poor countries such conditions first need
to be established, so that the GM crop impacts observed so far in India, China, South Africa, and
13
other more advanced developing countries cannot simply be extrapolated. Like any agricultural
technology, GM crops are not a substitute but a complement to much needed institutional change
in developing countries.
However, the biggest obstacles for GM crops are the negative public attitudes towards this
technology, especially in Europe but spilling over also to other parts of the world. Public attitudes
largely build on misinformation and narratives spread by anti-biotech activist groups. Even
though most of these narratives were disproved by scientific evidence, false negative stories still
strongly influence the public and policy debate. Negative public attitudes are also responsible for
the complex and protracted regulatory procedures, which increase the cost and uncertainty related
to the development and commercialization of GM crops. This is a challenge for private
companies, but affects public research organizations and humanitarian projects much more.
Multinational companies may still be able to afford the excessive regulatory costs, while smaller
companies and public research organizations are not. Thus, overregulation contributes to industry
concentration, with poor countries, poor farmers, and poor consumers suffering the most.
To advance pro-poor GM crop innovation, better science communication, more integrity in
public and policy debates, and streamlined regulatory approaches are required. Regulatory reform
also needs to account for new breeding techniques, such as genome editing, which also have large
potentials to contribute to sustainable development (Zaidi et al. 2019).
Conclusion
The evidence suggests that the risks of GM crops are overrated in the public debate, while the
benefits are underrated. Impact studies of commercialized GM crops show that there are sizeable
economic and environmental benefits. Insect-resistant crops in particular have positive social
14
effects in the small farm sector and contribute to poverty reduction. Farmers in developing
countries benefit more than farmers in industrialized countries. GM technologies in the research
pipeline include crops that are tolerant to various abiotic stresses and crops that contain higher
amounts of micronutrients. The benefits of such future applications could be much bigger than
the ones already observed. Against the background of a dwindling natural resource base and
growing demand for agricultural products, GM crops could contribute significantly to food
security and sustainable development.
However, GM crops are no panacea. Like any transformative technology, they raise certain
questions that need to be addressed to avoid undesirable side-effects. Some of these questions are
rightly raised by biotech critics, but the conclusion that any potential issue would justify a ban is
certainly inappropriate. Unfortunately, the entrenched fundamental debate about banning or
allowing GM crops has often overshadowed more detailed questions of suitable technology
management. Relevant questions, for which policy responses and institutional adjustments may
be required, include the following. How can we ensure that GM crops are used sustainably as part
of diverse agricultural systems and not as substitutes for proper agronomy? How can market
power by a few multinationals be prevented? How can we facilitate the development of GM
crops and traits that could particularly benefit poor farmers and consumers? How can we ensure
that suitable GM crop technologies will actually reach the poor through appropriate technology
transfer mechanisms? What is the appropriate level of IPR protection in industrialized and
developing countries? Finding answers to these and other relevant questions will require more
research and a more constructive public and policy dialogue.
15
References
Barrows, G., Sexton, S. and Zilberman, D. (2014). Agricultural biotechnology: The promise and
prospects of genetically modified crops. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28, 99-120.
EASAC (2013). Planting the Future: Opportunities and Challenges for Using Crop Genetic
Improvement Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture. EASAC Policy Report 21, Halle:
European Academies Science Advisory Council.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Wechsler, J.J., Livingston, M. and Mitchell, L. (2014). Genetically
engineered crops in the United States. Economic Research Report ERR-162, Washington, DC:
United Sates Department of Agriculture.
Gilbert, N. (2013) A hard look at GM crops. Nature 497, 24-26.
ISAAA (2018). Biotech information resource. http://www.isaaa.org/, International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
James, C. (2017). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2016. ISAAA Brief 53,
Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
Kathage, J. and Qaim, M. (2012). Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus
thuringiensis) cotton in India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109,
11652-11656.
Klümper, W. and Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops.
PLOS ONE 9, e111629.
NAS (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) (2016). Genetically
engineered crops: Experiences and prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Paarlberg, R.L. (2008). Starved for science: How biotechnology is being kept out of Africa.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16
Qaim, M. (2016). Genetically modified crops and agricultural development. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Qaim, M. (2009). The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource
Economics 1, 665-693.
Qaim, M. and Kouser, S. (2013). Genetically modified crops and food security. PLOS ONE 8,
e64879.
Smyth, S.J., Phillips, P.W.B. and Castle, D., eds. (2014). Handbook on agriculture,
biotechnology and development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Stone, G.D. (2010). The anthropology of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of
Anthropology 39, 381-400.
Zaidi, S.S., Vanderschuren, H., Qaim, M., Mahfouz, M.M., Kohli, A., Mansoor, S., Tester, M.
(2019). New plant breeding technologies for food security. Science 363, 1390-1391.
17