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

Beyond risks, what do we know about GM crop impacts?

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

What do we know about GM crop impacts in a small farm context?

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