GMOs: A Good but Battered Means for Sustainable Production Intensification

Fileccia, Turi

doi:10.22059/ijhst.2018.210210.135

GMOs: A Good but Battered Means for Sustainable Production Intensification

Document Type : Research paper

Author

Turi Fileccia

Senior Agronomist in the FAO Investment Centre, Rome, Italy

10.22059/ijhst.2018.210210.135

Abstract

FAO promotes Sustainable Production Intensification (SPI), which consists of a technology menu for optimizing crop production per unit area, taking into consideration the range of sustainability aspects including potential and/or real social, political, economic and environmental impacts. The author suggests that Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cropping is not only well aligned to SPI but also that this technology is a way to maximize the SPI principles. GMO crops cover about 13 percent of the world’s cropped land. More than three quarters of this area is within the three countries that also lead the production and export of the major food and feed commodities: USA, Brazil and Argentina. The remaining area is spread across about 29 countries, mostly developing countries and a few industrialised countries. Four crops account for the majority of land under GMO crops: corn, soybean, cotton, and canola. About 90 percent of the soybean and 80 percent of the corn that is traded in the world market is genetically engineered. Consequently a very large part of the world population likely eats every day food that either contains GMOs or GMO derivatives or animal products derived from GMO fed animals. It has been the fastest adopted agricultural technology, rising to its current level over only twenty years. Further increases in production will mainly occur in developing and low-income countries. In the EU, a large majority of the member states have chosen to rule against GMO cultivation. It is essentially a ‘marketing’ strategy. Nevertheless, GMOs land on European tables daily in one way or another. The developing world and its low income countries are gradually improving their policy, institutional and administrative environments towards the adoption of modern biotech rules. The technology is simple, has been thoroughly tested and through extensive scientific research and testing has been shown to be as safe as crops bred and developed by other techniques. The advantages in terms of higher crop productivity and lower production costs are substantial and widely proven. GMOs are also substantially eco-friendly but more research and development is required to improve herbicide management. Only a small fraction of the GM achievements, and opportunities, are being widely exploited. Other tested discoveries, which offer valuable strategies to address the challenges of climate change, productivity concerns and human health plagues/malnutrition that are widespread in low income countries, are yet to be adopted on a meaningful scale. There is no credible evidence that GMOs constitute a threat to human health. International rules and regulatory frameworks exist and are acknowledged. Cultural, which at times appear to be ideological, barriers more often of the developed world, are hindering rational technological advancement and food security and adequacy. In order to feed the growing world population, heading towards 9 billion or more by 2050, there is the need to increase food production by 60-70 percent, and to double it in the developing world where the highest demographic growth will occur. A safe and sustainable technology exists that can contribute substantially towards this target and humanitarian responsibility.

Keywords

References

A decade of EU-funded GMO research. European Commission Directorate-General for Research Communication Unit. 2001-2010.

Andrew Bartholomaeus, Ph.D. Seminar Paper delivered at FAO. 2015, Safety of novel food and genetically altered crops. What would science-based regulation look like?

Brookes G, Barfoot P. 2015. Global income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2013. GM Crops and Food 6(1), 13-46.

Burachik M. 2010. Experience from use of GMOs in Argentinian agriculture, economy and environment. New Biotechnology 27(5), 588-592.

Camille D. Ryan. 2014. Agriculture, Science and Public Perceptions on Biotechnology.

Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies (North Dakota Univ.). 2015. Outlook of the U.S. and World Corn and Soybean Industries 2014-2024.

Codex Alimentarius. 2003. Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology.

Cooke J.G, Downie R. 2010. African Perspectives on Genetically Modified Crops Assessing the Debate in Zambia, Kenya, and South Africa: A Report of the CSIS Global Food Security Project. Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Crowder D.W, Reganold J.P. 2015. Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(24), 7611-7616.

EASAC. 2013. Planting the future: opportunities and challenges for using crop genetic improvement technologies for sustainable agriculture.

EC. 2010. A Decade of EU-funded GMO research 2001-2010.

FAO. 2004. State of the Food and Agriculture 2003-2004.

FAO. 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision.

FAO. 2013. Biotechnologies at Work for Smallholders: Case Studies from Developing Countries in Crops, Livestock and Fish.

FiBL and IFOAM. 2015. The World of Organic Agriculture.

Foreign Agricultural Service/USDA. 2015. Coarse Grains: World Markets and Trade.

Ghent University. 2015. Horizontal gene transfer: Sweet potato naturally 'genetically modified. Science Daily.

Gruère G.P, Mehta-Bhatt P, Sengupta D. 2008. Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India: Reviewing the evidence. International Food Policy Research Institute.

ISAAA. 2014. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops, Briefs: 36-49 from 2006-2014.

IUCN. 2007. Impacts of GMOs on biodiversity and human health.

Klümper W, Qaim M. 2014. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PloS one 9(11), e111629.

Network C.B.A, Slater A, Holtslander C. 2015. Where in the world are GM crops and foods? GMO Inquiry 2015.

Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D. 2014. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical reviews in biotechnology 34(1), 77-88.

Orgiazzia A, Panagosa P, Yiginia Y, B.Dunbara M, Gardiab C, Montanarellaa L, Ballabio C. 2016. A knowledge-based approach to estimating the magnitude and spatial patterns of potential threats to soil biodiversity. Science of The Total Environment 245, 11-12.

Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé J.B, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch A.E. 2012. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food and Chemical toxicology 50(3-4), 1134-1148.

The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2000. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

USDA. 2014. Genetically engineered crops in the USA.

USDA. 2015. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates.

Van Eenennaam A.L, Young A.E. 2014. Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations1. Journal of Animal Science 92(10), 4255-4278.

World Bank. 2000. Policy and Institutional Options for Biotechnology in Developing Countries AKIS Discussion Paper.

World Health Organization. 2009. Foods derived from modern biotechnology (No. Ed. 2). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/spi/en/

http://www.isaaa.org/inbrief/donors/default.asp

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/trade.aspx

http://www.nextquotidiano.it/elena-cattaneo-ogm-fermiamo-linganno-anti-scientifico/

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

USDA. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1282246/err162.pdf

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112

http://www.pewresearch.org/

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/riskcommunication/riskperception

http://twas.org/article/redesigning-modern-agriculture