Author: theoamendola

Background

The debate considering the integration of genetically modified (GM) crops into global agriculture is internationally and intranationally divisive. Among the scientific community however, there is an overwhelming consensus of their safety, effectiveness, and necessity. The disagreement then, is largely between academic, political, and social thought leaders. Since the 1990s, GM crops have grown more prominent at an exponential rate in terms of use and development. As the effects from climate change are felt more strongly, the benefits and need for their integration become increasingly more clear. This includes reducing global food insecurity, increasing agricultural independence among developing nations, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and negative environmental impacts produced by the agriculture industry, and stimulating local economies.

Benefits

The easing of regulations and increase in scientific trust has the capacity to greatly reduce agricultural emissions. This principle on a global scale can be modeled by focusing on the European Union (EU). It has been determined that if the EU used the same adoption rate as the United States a total of 34 million tons of carbon dioxide gas would be eliminated instead of emitted into the atmosphere every year (Kovak et al. 2022). This results from the decrease of land-use change (primarily in the form of deforestation), and a decreased use of pesticides and herbicides. This is not agreed upon in a global context, as shown by Azadi (et al.) in 2022. This study interviewed farmers around the world about the impacts of GM crops, finding that the perceived environmental impacts were largely negative. Additionally, there is a vast variety of degrees of acceptance internationally (Turnbull et al. 2021) and juxtaposing ideologies in regions such as Latin America and Africa. 

The potential political impact can be shown by a reduction in food insecurity (Szenkovics et al. 2020). It has been found that food insecurity is directly proportional to political unrest, and a low rate of peace for any given nation. 

Economic gain could be found in the form of regional stimulation, shifting from an import-based system to self-sufficient or even export-based economies. The profound increase in farmer production would continue uniformly, raising many poor communities from poverty (Kavhiza et al. 2022; Heisey et al. 2015). 

Opposition

The opposition to GM crops is largely founded in the lack of long-term testing, and the risk associated with it. Additionally, a public mistrust of the motivations of regulatory agencies has contributed to a slowing of acceptance. The possible loss of biodiversity and uncertainty about environmental effects are legitimate concerns, and meta-analyses attribute this to preventing many legislative bodies around the world from integrating GM crops (Azadi et al. 2022). 

Among other things, a primary argument against the environmental benefits regards the inevitable increase of pesticide and herbicide poisoning the environment and the farmers. This oversimplifies the issue, and takes advantage of public disinformation. As expert and advocate Emma Kovak points out, “Herbicide resistant (HR) crops don’t lead to an increase in herbicide use over time …” In fact, many farms report a reduced use in herbicides following GM crops (Vencill 2012). “ There are examples of farmers overall replacing more toxic herbicides with the less-toxic herbicide glyphosate (the most common herbicide that HR crops are resistant to).” An additional indirect effect of HR crops is the increase in reduced-tilling or zero-tilling farming, which has potential to stabilize the soil profile of a field- benefiting the environment and producing more reliable yields (Kavhiza et al. 2022). At the same time, it is true that GM crops are responsible for the evolution of highly effective weeds and insects, which can only be killed with increasingly harmful chemicals (Mortensen et al. 2012). This, combined with the notorious (sometimes impossible) difficulty of retraction adds gravity to the decision of permission. 

Developing nations have historically been taken advantage of economically and politically by the developed world, justifying a cautious approach for accepting biological material. This can be best demonstrated through the case of Ghana and Burkina-Faso in 2017, when pest-resistant cotton trials were halted completely due to the inferior quality of their products. Burkina-Faso then sued the distributor, Monsanto, restricting Ghana’s access to the variety completely (Rock 2022). The lack of control is frustrating for countries, something banning GM crops entirely is meant to solve. This is contrasted by nations such as the Philippines, in which opposition groups (largely from first-world nations) burned fields experimenting with golden rice, a GM crop designed to fight vitamin A deficiency and reduce childhood blindness in developing nations.

Interestingly, many nations allow the importing and consuming of GMO crops yet place strict cultivation bans on their land. Additional cases include countries allowing cultivation of inedible crops, or outlining an unrealistic approval process to slow integration. There is a case to be made against GM crops via a lack of state control, demonstrated in 2022 by Markus Rauchecker. The failure of the Argentine government to regulate transgenic soy was due to a variety of factors, many of which were unforeseen to be problematic (Rauchecker 2022). This case can act as a proxy for the global regulatory ability of GM crops as a whole, exposing their potentially uncontrollable nature.

Development

The current state of genetically engineered crops is variable among stress types. A detailed analysis on the tomato serves as a model case for many other crops due to its environmental sensitivity, cultural prevalence, and nutritional content. Aspects such as biological fortification and insect resistance are well-developed due to their historical presence, contrasting characteristics including temperature fluctuation and moisture variability introduced by climate change (Kumari et al. 2020). The amount of useful knowledge held on resisting stress types varies inversely with their severity in the future (Heisy et al. 2015), most notably abiotic stress factors increased with climate change. Serious development in the way plants can resist abiotic stresses is necessary to coexist with the growing food economy. 

Genetic illiteracy is restricting governments from enacting policies to integrate genetically enhanced agriculture (Kavhiza et al. 2022). There are countless misconceptions distributed about the environmental impacts and safety of GM crops, causing farmers to adopt a conservative stance in opposition. Many of these opinions are rooted in disinformation, causing irrational decisions to be made.

It is largely due to the public goods characteristics of agriculture that economic incentive is difficult to create (Heisy et al. 2015). From this, the use of public sector investment is critical. Building financial incentives for genetic researchers will improve the technology’s safety, effectiveness, and acceptance.

Summary

The integration of GM crops has many possible benefits, and several possible negative outcomes. For this reason, the degree of their adoption varies globally. The current state of the research required to maintain a global food supply with the introduction of climate change is in its infancy, and more development is necessary. The possibility of governments loosening regulations will likely accelerate this, which may start with the diminishing of misconceptions and disinformation.

References

1. Azadi, Hossein, et al. “Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries: Savior or Traitor?” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 371, 2022, p. 133296., doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133296.
2. Heisey, Paul W., and Kelly Day Rubenstein. Using Crop Genetic Resources To Help Agriculture Adapt to Climate Change: Economics and Policy, EIB-139, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 2015.
3. Kavhiza, Nyasha John, et al. “Improving Crop Productivity and Ensuring Food Security through the Adoption of Genetically Modified Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Agronomy, vol. 12, no. 2, 2022, p. 439., doi:10.3390/agronomy12020439.
4. Kovak, Emma. Email message to the author, October 12, 2022
5. Kovak, Emma, et al. “Genetically Modified Crops Support Climate Change Mitigation.” Cell Press Open Access, Trends in Plant Science, July 2022.
6. Kumari, P Hima, et al. Transgenic Tomatoes for Abiotic Stress Tolerance and Fruit Traits: A Review of Progress and a Preview of Potential. Springer Nature Singapore Pte, 9 Oct. 2020, doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5932-7_1.
7. Mortensen DA, Egan JF, Maxwell BD, Ryan MR, Smith RG. “Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management.” BioScience. 2012;62(1):75-84.
8. Rauchecker, Markus. “Transgenic Soy as a Political Crop and a Resistance Crop in Argentina – the Struggle around Control and Rent Appropriation between the State, Seed Corporations and Soy Farmers.” Geoforum, vol. 130, 2022, pp. 123–135., doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.09.002.
9. Rock, Joeva Sean. “Introduction.” We Are Not Starving: The Struggle for Food Sovereignty in Ghana, Michigan State University Press, 2022, pp. xiii–xlvi. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.14321/j.ctv2p5zn7x.5. Accessed 17 Oct. 2022.

10. Szenkovics, Dezső, et al. “Can Genetically Modified (GM) Crops Act as Possible Alternatives to Mitigate World Political Conflicts for Food?” Food and Energy Security, vol. 10, no. 1, 2020, doi:10.1002/fes3.268.
11. Turnbull C, Lillemo M and Hvoslef-Eide TAK (2021) Global Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops Amid the Gene Edited Crop Boom – A Review. Front. Plant Sci. 12:630396. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.630396
12. Vencill, William K., et al. “Herbicide Resistance: Toward an Understanding of Resistance Development and the Impact of Herbicide-Resistant Crops.” Weed Science, vol. 60, no. SP1, 2012, pp. 2–30., doi:10.1614/ws-d-11-00206.1.