View
226
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
The role of genetically modified crops for food security
Matin QaimUniversity of Goettingen, Germany
Mexico City, 29 September 2016
Achieving sustainable food security will require game-changing technologies from all areas of science
• Genetics / Breeding• Agronomy• Digital technologies• Etc.
Common approaches in plant breeding• Mass selection
• Backcrossing
• Wide crosses
• Hybridization
• Mutagenesis
• Marker-assisted selection
• Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer
• Biolistics
• Genome editing
“Conventional breeding”
(“natural” and “safe”)
“Genetic engineering (GMOs)”
(“unnatural” and “risky”)
GMOs: controversial topic• The public and policy debate is primarily focused on risks• Regulatory procedures were put in place treating GMOs very
differently from other technologies• However, 30 years of research and 20 years of commercial
experience have shown that GM crops are not more risky than conventionally bred crops
This conclusion was drawn by:• WHO • Union of German Academies of Science • Brazilian Academy of Sciences
• FAO • British Royal Society • Mexican Academy of Sciences
• OECD • British Medical Association • Indian Academy of Sciences
• European Research Directorate • French Academy of Sciences • Chinese Academy of Sciences
• EASAC (European Academies) • French Academy of Medicine • Nuffield Council on Bioethics
• International Council for Science • National Academy of Sciences (USA) • Etc.
• The public has not taken note of this scientific evidence
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Milli
on h
a
Total
Developing countries
Global area cultivated with GMOs
Source: James (2015).
Only two modified traits:1. Herbicide tolerance
2. Insect resistance
Impact studies• Many impact studies carried out over the last 20 years:
ü Focusing on different countriesü With different types of dataü With different methodologiesü With different results
• GMO supporters and opponents refer to their “preferred studies” in the debate, leading to further polarization
• Meta-analysis can be useful to:ü Draw broader lessons from the cumulated evidenceü Explain reasons for heterogeneity in impacts
Global meta-analysis of GM crop impactsSource: Klümper and Qaim (2014)
21.6***
-36.9***
3.3
68.2***
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Crop yield (n=451)
Pesticide quantity (n=121)
Production cost (n=115)
Farmer profit (n=136)
Perc
ent
*** significant at 1% level
Breakdown by type of GM trait
All GM crops
Insect resistance
Herbicide tolerance
Yield 21.6*** 24.9*** 9.3**
Pesticide quantity -36.9*** -41.7*** 2.4Source: Klümper and Qaim (2014).
In some regions, weed resistance to glyphosate has reduced the benefits of herbicide-tolerant crops over time.
Breakdown by geographical region
Yield Pesticide Farmer profit
Developing country (dummy) 14.2*** -19.2*** 59.5***
Meta-regression results (percentage point effects)
Source: Klümper and Qaim (2014).
Developing-country farmers benefit more, because:
1. They suffer more from pest and disease problems
2. Most GM technologies are not patented there, hence seeds are cheaper than in developed countries
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Mill
ion
ha
Bt cotton adoption in India
In 2015: 11.6 m ha (97%)
Grown by 8 million smallholders
Impact analysis with panel data
Survey of 530 farm households in four states
Four waves of panel data (2002-08)
Analysis of:• impacts• impact dynamics
-50%
Bt impact on insecticide use in India
Source: Krishna and Qaim (2012)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Conventional 2002-2004
Bt 2002-2004 Bt 2006-2008 Conventional 2006-2008
Activ
e in
gred
ient
(kg
/ha)
-37%
Bt impact on yield and farmer profit in IndiaYield
(kg/ha)Profit($/ha)
Bt effect 311***(+24%)
94***(+50%)
Change over time 0 / + 0 / +
Sources: Kathage and Qaim (2012), Qaim and Kouser (2013).
Householdconsumption (US$)
Calorie intake (kcal/person)
Bt effect 321**(+18%)
145***(+5%)
Bt impact on household living standard
Household income effects per ha of cotton
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-Extremely poor Moderately poor Non poorAll households
BtConventional
US$
/ha
$250/hax 11.6 m = $2.9 billion Source: Subramanian and
Qaim (2010).
Future prospects• Evidence suggests that GM crops can be beneficial for
farmers and the environment
• Productivity increases also reduce market prices and make products more accessible for consumers
• So far, very limited range of GM technologies. Future technologies could be much more beneficial
• Many interesting GM technologies tested in the field:– Drought-tolerant and salt-tolerant maize, rice, and wheat– Maize and rice with higher nitrogen use efficiency– Micronutrient-rich rice, sorghum, cassava, and banana– Etc.
• Will these technologies ever be commercialized?
Serious overregulation• Many countries in Africa and Asia have established EU-style
regulatory systems (strict, complex, heavily politicized)• Fuels public notion that GM crops are dangerous• Makes technology unnecessarily expensive• Contributes to industry concentration (multinationals)• Contributes to focus on large countries and selected crops
with large commercial potential• Even humanitarian projects suffer from the same hurdles• EU anti-biotech attitudes have far-reaching global
implications• Arguing that gene editing is different will not solve the
broader issue that perceptions are driving science policies
Conclusion• Game-changing technologies can
only materialize when the global society is sufficiently open for them
• Issues of public acceptance can be overcome with honest science communication (more integrity in the debate)
• The CGIAR should play a bigger role in this endeavor, as this will be key for achieving sustainable food security Palgrave Macmillan, 2016
Recommended