Sustainability assessment of GM crops in a Swiss agricultural context

When will agricultural biotechnologies, such as genetically modified (GM) crops, reach Europe? This was the main question at the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC)—the largest of its kind—that took place in September this year in Cologne, Germany. Given that the ABIC was accompanied by a parallel conference organized by critics of GM crops and foods, this is an appropriate question. Most of the European Union (EU) member states have not yet approved the GM crops that are used widely and safely elsewhere in the world. Moreover, although the EU has finally lifted its moratorium on GM crops, and has passed new regulations for growing and marketing GM foods, national politics, legislation and ideological views about consumer and environmental protection have further hampered their use. European consumers remain wary of agricultural biotechnology and its products, as they do not see any direct benefits from GM crops and are, therefore, understandably reluctant to accept them. But it is only a matter of time before GM foods arrive on supermarket shelves across Europe, predicts Ashley O'Sullivan, President and CEO of Ag‐West Bio Inc. (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada). “The reality for legislation to regulate agricultural biotechnology is that the train has left the station and there is no way of going back,” he added. > …to convince the cautious European public, agricultural biotechnology still has to […] offer products that directly benefit consumers But to convince the cautious European public, agricultural biotechnology still has to show that it can do more than increase the returns to farmers, and offer products that directly benefit consumers. The next wave of GM plants, which are currently being developed and tested in academic and industry laboratories around the world, including Europe, may soon do this. A range of new GM crops in the research pipeline will offer direct benefits to …

Genetically modified (GM) crops are now being grown extensively in North and South America and China, although not in Europe. Food produced from these crops has become a part of the normal diet in North and South America and in China, but not in Europe, where contention continues despite the fact that millions of US citizens eat GM soya without any ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans have eaten GM soya while in the US without any adverse consequences. > Why has the British public, who normally so pragmatically welcome scientific advances, resisted the introduction of genetically modified crops? European consumers' continuous and ardent opposition to GM crops and foods has had serious repercussions for plant research, for the commercial development of new crops and, most importantly, for developing countries that could benefit most from GM crops. Several countries in Africa and elsewhere have resisted growing such crops, mainly for fear of being unable to export them to the European market ( The Economist , 2002). It is therefore worthwhile to investigate what actually went wrong in the debate about GM food and crops in Europe and how these foods have earned such a bad name. Such an analysis could not only help to overcome public fears of this technology, but also help scientists and policy makers to address similar concerns in the future, such as the growing debate over nanotechnology. The concerns of European consumers about the potential health and environmental threats of GM crops have resulted in an unprecedented effort to investigate those anxieties and communicate with the wider public, particularly in the UK, where the use of public consultation has been extensively developed. The first of these initiatives was the extensive Farm Scale Evaluations of three GM crops (herbicide‐resistant beet, oil seed rape and maize), whose …

The genetic modification of plants is now an established tool for plant breeders in many parts of the world, with the area of land used for genetically modified (GM) crop cultivation rising to 170 million hectares by 2012. This article puts genetic modification of plants into the context of scientific plant breeding, and describes the techniques that are used to transform plants and that define the term genetically modified. The design of transgenes is described, as is the use of selectable and visible marker genes. The use of GM crops in commercial agriculture is covered in detail, including GM crops that may be developed for commercial use in the near future. The barriers to the continued development of crop biotechnology are considered, notably the cost, the associated issue of regulatory compliance and the problem of consumer acceptance. The consequences of science losing the GM crop debate are discussed. Key Concepts: Genetic modification (GM) is a term used to describe the artificial introduction of a gene or genes into an organism's genome. Genetic modification is now an established tool in plant breeding in many parts of the world. Genetically modified crops were grown on 170 million hectares of land in 2012. ‘Input’ traits such as herbicide tolerance and insect resistance are by far the most successful GM traits. Other GM traits in commercial crops include virus resistance, modified oil content, increased nutritional value, drought tolerance and the synthesis of high‐value, nonfood products (biopharming). Increased vitamin A content, improved food safety and bioremediation are targets for GM crop programmes that may be commercialised in the next few years. GM is the most heavily regulated area of plant breeding, and over‐regulation is a significant barrier to the development of the technology. Consumer acceptance of GM crops remains a difficult issue in some regions, notably Europe.

The genetic modification of crop plants from the methodology involved in their production through to the current debate on their use in agriculture are reviewed. Techniques for plant transformation by Agrobacterium tumefaciens and particle bombardment, and for the selection of transgenic plants using marker genes are described. The benefits of currently available genetically modified (GM) crops in reducing waste and agrochemical use in agriculture, and the potential of the technology for further crop improvement in the future are discussed. The legal requirements for containment of novel GM crops and the roles of relevant regulatory bodies in ensuring that GM crops and food are safe are summarized. Some of the major concerns of the general public regarding GM crops and food: segregation of GM and non-GM crops and cross-pollination between GM crops and wild species, the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes, the prevention of new allergens being introduced in to the food chain and the relative safety of GM and non-GM foods are considered. Finally, the current debate on the use of GM crops in agriculture and the need for the government, scientists and industry to persevere with the technology in the face of widespread hostility is studied.

As a developing country with relatively limited arable land, China is making great efforts for development and use of genetically modified (GM) crops to boost agricultural productivity. Many GM crop varieties have been developed in China in recent years; in particular, China is playing a leading role in development of insect-resistant GM rice lines. To ensure the safe use of GM crops, biosafety risk assessments are required as an important part of the regulatory oversight of such products. With over 20 years of nationwide promotion of agricultural biotechnology, a relatively well-developed regulatory system for risk assessment and management of GM plants has been developed that establishes a firm basis for safe use of GM crops. So far, a total of seven GM crops involving ten events have been approved for commercial planting, and 5 GM crops with a total of 37 events have been approved for import as processing material in China. However, currently only insect-resistant Bt cotton and disease-resistant papaya have been commercially planted on a large scale. The planting of Bt cotton and disease-resistant papaya have provided efficient protection against cotton bollworms and Papaya ringspot virus (PRSV), respectively. As a consequence, chemical application to these crops has been significantly reduced, enhancing farm income while reducing human and non-target organism exposure to toxic chemicals. This article provides useful information for the colleagues, in particular for them whose mother tongue is not Chinese, to clearly understand the biosafety regulation and commercial use of genetically modified crops in China.

Genetically modified (GM) crops are cultivated globally on more than 185 million hectares, but the use of GM crops in Europe and Africa is very limited. Politicians are reluctant to allow such crops because they fear negative public reaction. The political hostility in the EU towards GM crops also has a significant impact on how African policy makers form their opinions for accepting GM crops in their own countries. However, studies reveal that specific types of GM food are welcomed by consumers and that few Europeans avoid GM labels when buying food. Similarly, African farmers and consumers are generally positive about GM crops. Policy makers should take these results into account when a decision needs to be made on whether or not to allow GM crop cultivation in their country. KEY WORDS: ACCEPTANCE, AFRICA, CONSUMERS, EUROPE, FARMERS, GM CROPS

Agriculture faces serious problems in feeding 9 billion people by 2050: production must be increased and ecosystem services maintained under conditions for growing crops that are predicted to worsen in many parts of the world. A proposed solution is sustainable intensification of agriculture, whereby yields are increased on land that is currently cultivated, so sparing land to deliver other ecosystem services. Genetically modified (GM) crops are already contributing to sustainable intensification through higher yields and lower environmental impacts, and have potential to deliver further significant improvements. Despite their widespread successful use elsewhere, the European Union (EU) has been slow to introduce GM crops: decisions on applications to import GM commodities are lengthy, and decision-making on applications to cultivate GM crops has virtually ceased. Delayed import approvals result in economic losses, particularly in the EU itself as a result of higher commodity prices. Failure to grant cultivation approvals costs EU farmers opportunities to reduce inputs, and results in loss of agricultural research and development from the EU to countries such as the United States and China. Delayed decision-making in the EU ostensibly results from scientific uncertainty about the effects of using GM crops; however, scientific uncertainty may be a means to justify a political decision to restrict cultivation of GM crops in the EU. The problems associated with delayed decision-making will not improve until there is clarity about the EU’s agricultural policy objectives, and whether the use of GM crops will be permitted to contribute to achieving those objectives.

Genetically modified (GM) crops are cultivated globally on more than 185 million hectares, but the use of GM crops in Europe and Africa is very limited. Politicians are reluctant to allow such crops because they fear negative public reaction. The political hostility in the EU towards GM crops also has a significant impact on how African policy makers form their opinions for accepting GM crops in their own countries. However, studies reveal that specific types of GM food are welcomed by consumers and that few Europeans avoid GM labels when buying food. Similarly, African farmers and consumers are generally positive about GM crops. Policy makers should take these results into account when a decision needs to be made on whether or not to allow GM crop cultivation in their country.

In this paper, I investigate the moral status of agricultural biotechnology and, more specifically, genetically modified (GM) crops by employing the hubris argument. The old notion of hubris, given to us by the ancient Greeks, provides a narrative from which we can understand ourselves and technology. Ronald Sandler offers us an understanding of hubris he claims gives us a prima facie reason and a presumption against the use of GM crops. I argue that Sandler’s hubris argument fails for several reasons: (1) Sander and many others fail to have a proper understanding of agriculture as an inherently technological practice which is radically different from ‘nature’; (2) the notions of control and manipulation which are central to the concept of hubris are difficult to understand and use in the context of agriculture; (3) trying to establish a prima facie reason against GM crops runs into serious difficulty since many GM crops are profoundly different from each other; and (4) even if we accept Sandler’s argument of hubris, it actually plays no role in the reasoning and evaluation of the moral status of different GM crops.

Genetically modified (GM) crops and the food products derived from them have been in widespread use in North America since 1995. A wide range of food products in North America and elsewhere contain GM derived products. With a slightly longer timeframe, and almost no public rejection or even debate, medical products throughout the developed world, including EU countries, have been produced using GM bacteria (especially E coli) and GM animals, such as goats. The next generation of GM crops will be drought tolerant, require less nitrogen and have enhanced nutritional profiles. During the almost 15 years of widespread use in North America and a number of other countries, no new risks have emerged. Nonetheless, SubSaharan African countries, with the exception of South Africa, continue to resist the use of GM crops. Given, the safety record of these crops, the mitigation of environmental degradation they achieve compared to traditional crops and the farming practices they require, and the higher yields of GM crops, this resistance and rejection is, on the surface, baffling. A full explanation will certainly be complex but a significant role is played by the post-colonial influence of developed nations – their governments and their non-governmental organisations. Today in all developed nations, medical applications of GM are moving forward at a rapid pace and in many countries outside Europe GM crop development and planting is advancing rapidly. In the developing world, China, India, South Africa and many countries in South America are moving forward with the use of GM crops. Once again because of the influences of old colonial powers, Sub-Saharan African countries are being left behind. It is time for African countries to take control of their destinies; it is time for them to turn their gaze and allegiance away from the developed world –especially Europe - towards their natural partners in development: China, India and South Africa. These countries are pointing the way forward, the way out of poverty, hunger and dependency.

The global area sown to genetically modified (GM) varieties of leading commercial crops (soybean, maize, canola, and cotton) has expanded over 100-fold over two decades. Thirty countries are producing GM crops and just five countries (United States, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and India) account for almost 90% of the GM production. Only four crops account for 99% of worldwide GM crop area. Almost 100% of GM crops on the market are genetically engineered with herbicide tolerance (HT), and insect resistance (IR) traits. Approximately 70% of cultivated GM crops are HT, and GM HT crops have been credited with facilitating no-tillage and conservation tillage practices that conserve soil moisture and control soil erosion, and that also support carbon sequestration and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Crop production and productivity increased significantly during the era of the adoption of GM crops; some of this increase can be attributed to GM technology and the yield protection traits that it has made possible even if the GM traits implemented to-date are not yield traits per se. GM crops have also been credited with helping to improve farm incomes and reduce pesticide use. Practical concerns around GM crops include the rise of insect pests and weeds that are resistant to pesticides. Other concerns around GM crops include broad seed variety access for farmers and rising seed costs as well as increased dependency on multinational seed companies. Citizens in many countries and especially in European countries are opposed to GM crops and have voiced concerns about possible impacts on human and environmental health. Nonetheless, proponents of GM crops argue that they are needed to enhance worldwide food production. The novelty of the technology and its potential to bring almost any trait into crops mean that there needs to remain dedicated diligence on the part of regulators to ensure that no GM crops are deregulated that may in fact pose risks to human health or the environment. The same will be true for the next wave of new breeding technologies, which include gene editing technologies.

Effects of changing farm management and farm structure on energy balance and energy-use efficiency—A case study of organic and conventional farming systems in southern Germany

The development and utility of genetically modified (GM) crops for smallholders around the world is controversial. Critical questions include what traits and crops are to be developed; how they can be adapted to smallholders’ ecological, social and economic contexts; which dissemination channels should be used to reach smallholders; and which policy environments will enable the greatest benefits for smallholders and the rural poor. A key question is how the voices of smallholders who have experience with or desire to use GM technologies enter the larger debate. Africa has the greatest number of smallholders and poor with the least exposure to GM crops. Because of the well-established use of GM crops in South Africa by commercial farmers, we formed a community of practice (CoP) involving smallholders, extension, researchers, non-profits and agribusiness in KwaZulu-Natal to examine the conditions under which GM crops are used by smallholders, how smallholders interact with GM technologies and what insights smallholders and other stakeholders can provide regarding these questions. One of the advantages of the CoP approach is that it brings stakeholders together in a non-hierarchical way that encourages new ways of thinking and new partnerships. Such interaction around a specific project can enhance the voice of smallholders in a variety of ways. In our project, smallholder participants have increased their knowledge and can make better decisions about GM technologies, which had been barriers for them. Notably, they have also improved their knowledge of maize production practices, accessed new practice networks, and met new researchers and resource providers. They are now being integrated into these networks in a way that should improve their livelihoods and make the wants and needs of smallholders better known. Such knowledge and experience has improved their voice in agriculture and rural development discussions.

Impact of genetically modified crops on rhizosphere microorganisms and processes: A review focusing on Bt cotton

A survey of three blocksin Solan District of Himachal Pradesh was carried out during 2020-2021 with the objective to evaluate the soil quality and plant nutrient contents under Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) and Conventional farming systems. 30 representative surface soil and plant samples (15 each of conventional and ZBNF farming systems) were collected and analyzed from farmers’ fields practicing ZBNF and conventional farming, respectively, in the same block. N, P, and K were recorded 5.21, 14.69 and 10.27% higher, respectively, under conventional farming as compared to the ZBNF farming system. Similarly, maximum Ca, Mg and S were also recorded 7.62, 12.21 and 16.64% higher, respectively, under conventional farming system as compared to ZBNF farming system. In contrast, soil under the ZBNF system recorded 22.85% higher organic carbon as compared to the conventional farming system. Viable microbial count (45.72×105 cfu g-1 bacteria, 6.73×103 cfu g-1 Fungi and 9.28×103 cfu g-1 Actinomycetes) were also recorded higher under ZBNF compared to conventional farming system. Further, conventional farming system recorded higher leaf macronutrients as well as micronutrients in leaf compared to the ZBNF farming system. Resultantly, yield of pea was significantly higher (109.67 q ha-1) under conventional farming system as compared to ZBNF (92.07 q ha-1). However, 47% higher production cultivation cost under the conventional farming system resulted in better B:C Ratio of ZBNF farming system (2.13) as compared to a conventional farming system (1.52).