Genetically Modified Crops: Friend or Foe?

In my previous posts, I have mostly been talking about the environmentally destructive problems today's agricultural sector faces. It is now time to look at the future and what can be done to ease the burden the planet bears due to our eating habits and food production. This time I want to take on a widely controversial topic of genetically modified (GM) crops and their potential risks and benefits to our planet's health. I understand that biotechnology is a vast area of study and this blog cannot by any means cover all its ups and downs from ethical to socio-economic aspects. It is an interdisciplinary and complex issue and discussions about the future of GM crops have still not come to a conclusion. I will however try to understand whether GM crops can be a viable option for future food production in terms of its environmental impacts.

As time moves on, the world population is estimated to hit 9 billion in 2050 and we are desperate for ways to produce food in a more sustainable way ensuring higher yields and better nutrition to feed the world's population. GM crops have been considered as one of our promising options to reach our goals. If talking about genetic engineering and biotechnology, GM crops are considered as organisms whose characteristics have been deliberately modified 'by the manipulation of genetic material, especially DNA, and transformation of certain genes to create new variations of life' (Uzogara, 2000: p 180). There has been a longstanding debate between the advocators and the critics of GM crops. The proponents of GM argue that the benefits to humanity are limitless and that genetic engineering can be the answer to many of today's agricultural, health and ecological problems. They say the fear of GM crops is irrational and based on trade protectionism rather than realistic environmental and health concerns (Uzogara, 2000).

(Source:http://ecologyescapades.com)

One of the environmental concerns that GM brings along is the unintentional gene transfer to wild plants. Once genetically engineered crops are cultivated in the nature, they become harder to control and could easily cross-pollinate with wild species. This could lead to the creation of 'super-weeds': as GM crops incorporate a resistance to herbicide and insects, these characteristics could pass on to weeds that may become hard to eradicate. GM crops can therefore introduce invasive plants with potential to lower crop yields and the possibility of disrupted natural ecosystems (Uzogara, 2000).

A graph showing the global growth of biotech crops

(Source: James, 2011)

The graph above from a report on global status on commercialised GM crops shows the growth of biotech crops from 1996 to 2011 (James, 2011). Although biotech crops are becoming more common and are introduced all over the world, some critics still have their doubts. Some argue that due to the novelty of GM crops we also do not know how the new genes affect genetic diversity, nutritional values and health of humans (allergenicity) (Dale et al, 2002). Since 1996, GM crops have seen a dramatic rise in the United States, alongside with the increased health problems. But GM crops do not only affect humans (and animals) who consume them, they can impact the wider ecosystem as well. The new DNA sequence can enter the ecosystem by several means. For example, plant DNA becomes present in the soil as a result of decaying plant remains resulting in novel DNA make up in the soil (Dale et al, 2002). These small genetic alterations can lead to large-scale ecological changes. The impact of these novel DNA is largely dependent on whether it survives long enough to be transferred to other organisms (Dale et al, 2002).

Now let's look beyond the fears. If you look back a few posts, I addressed the issue of using agro-chemicals and pesticides in food production, linking them to their environmental risks. If you missed this post, here is a refresher. In addition to the potential of extended shelf-life and improved nutritional quality of GM crops, reduction in pesticide use is considered to be a benefit of genetic engineering (Phipps and Park, 2002). GM crops could be engineered to be weed and pest tolerant, leaving little room for pesticide use, leading to reductions in carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere. GM also increases the efficiency of nitrogen extraction from the soil by plants, leading to the decrease in need for fertiliser use. This eliminates the danger of wasted fertilisers leaking into waterways or evaporating to the atmosphere (Uzogara, 2000).

In addition, GM crops could introduce increased crop yields through reduced crop loss due to high-tolerance crops (to weeds, temperature, salinity and so on). GM crops would ensure an increased global food supply without losing further land to deforestation or peat destruction. 'Agricultural biotechnology will be particularly useful in land conservation in developing countries where valuable temperate and tropical forest lands are being converted to farmlands at an alarming rate' (Uzogara, 2000: p 197). To further consider the extended shelf-life of food products thanks to genetic engineering, food waste by supermarkets and individuals can shrink thanks to GM as well (you can read about impacts of food waste in my previous post here).

(Source: http://www.cooksbookblog.com)

Do you believe that introduction of GM crops will help the environment and the benefits overweigh the threats? Phipps and Park estimate that if 50% of maize, oil seed rape, sugar beet and cotton was grown as genetically modified crop, we would see a decrease of 7.5 million hectares sprayed, saving us 20.5 million litres of diesel and resulting in a reduction of approximately 73 000 tonnes of released carbon dioxide. Is that enough to overlook the risks of, as some like to call it, 'Frankenfood'? The polarisation of public debate around GM has led to huge losses in public goods, Potrykus (2013) argues in his paper published in Trends in Biotechnology. He points out that as a result of unjustified regulation, 'GMO product development is so expensive and time-consuming that it is beyond the capacity of public institutions and for public good'. Looking at the past 25 years of biotechnology research, Portykus finds no novel risk associated with transgenic plants. And if research is not enough, we have almost 17 years of practical experience incorporating 150 million hectares with no single documented case of harm related to GM crops. He takes the case of Golden Rice, genetically modified to be vitamin A rich compared to traditional rice. The invention could cure health problems related to vitamin deficiency in many countries with populations dependent on rice. However, due to tight regulation, the deployment of Golden Rice has taken 12 years, requiring up to USD 30 million, and is still largely debated and criticised.

The unknown threats to human health, biodiversity and ecosystems seem to raise still raise concerns about wide commercialisation of GM crops. Although research to date has not found any human health risk connected to GM crops, the public attitude remains negative and protected by rigorous regulation. In the longer run however, I believe that biotech regulation will start to ease and the GM crops will become a standard part of our food production (like we see it happening all over the world with the United States taking the lead (James, 2011)). If the modern food system continues in its current path (as the point of this whole blog), dramatic environmental consequences will follow.

Till next time,
Laura