Inequality and GM crops: a case study of Bt cotton in India

Critics of genetically modified (GM) crops often contend that their introduction enhances the gap between rich and poor farmers, as the former group are in the best position to afford the expensive seed as well as provide other inputs such as fertilizer and irrigation. The research reported in this paper explores this issue with regard to Bt cotton (cotton with the endotoxtin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis conferring resistance to some insect pests) in Jalgaon, Maharashtra State, India, spanning the 2002 and 2003 seasons. Questionnaire–based survey results from 63 non–adopting and 94 adopting households of Bt cotton were analyzed, spanning 137 Bt cotton plots and 95 non–Bt cotton plots of both Bt adopters and non–adopters. For these households, cotton income accounted for 85 to 88% of total household income, and is thus of vital importance. Results suggest that in 2003 Bt adopting households have significantly more income from cotton than do non–adopting households (Rp 66,872 versus Rp 46,351) but inequality in cotton income, measured with the Gini coefficient (G), was greater amongst non–adopters than adopters. While Bt adopters had greater acreage of cotton in 2003 (9.92 acres versus 7.42 for non–adopters), the respective values of G were comparable. The main reason for the lessening of inequality amongst adopters would appear to be the consistency in the performance of Bt cotton along with the preferred non–Bt cultivar of Bt adopters—Bunny. Taking gross margin as the basis for comparison, Bt plots had 2.5 times the gross margin of non–Bt plots of non–adopters, while the advantage of Bt plots over non–Bt plots of adopters was 1.6 times. Measured in terms of the Gini coefficient of gross margin/acre it was apparent that inequality was lessened with the adoption of Bunny (G = 0.47) and Bt (G = 0.3) relative to all other non–Bt plots (G = 0.63). Hence the issue of equality needs to be seen both in terms of differences between adopters and non–adopters as well as within each of the groups.

GM crops: a potential for pest mismanagement

In the absence of equivalent research on genetically modified (GM) pest-resistant crops, their impact in pest management can be predicted from experience with traditionally bred varieties which share with GM crops the characteristic that the resistance is based on high expression of a single toxin. Such varieties lead to the rapid selection of tolerant pest strains, damage biological control and induce tolerance to synthetic pesticides. By contrast, polygenic and more broadly based resistant varieties will maintain their resistance for longer, and often synergise beneficially with biological control. The pests also become more susceptible to insecticides, giving the opportunity for applications which are selective in favour of natural enemies. However, although GM crops compare badly with traditional pest-resistant varieties, they compare favourably with insecticides, the technology they are most likely to replace.

Technologies for biological containment of GM and Non-GM crops

International Perspective The development of GM technology continues to expand into increasing numbers of crops and conferred traits. Inevitably, the focus remains on the major field crops of soybean, maize, cotton, oilseed rape and potato with introduced genes conferring herbicide tolerance and/or pest resistance. Although there are comparatively few GM crops that have been commercialised to date, GM versions of 172 plant species have been grown in field trials in 31 countries. European Crops with Containment Issues Of the 20 main crops in the EU there are four for which GM varieties are commercially available (cotton, maize for animal feed and forage, and oilseed rape). Fourteen have GM varieties in field trials (bread wheat, barley, durum wheat, sunflower, oats, potatoes, sugar beet, grapes, alfalfa, olives, field peas, clover, apples, rice) and two have GM varieties still in development (rye, triticale). Many of these crops have hybridisation potential with wild and weedy relatives in the European flora (bread wheat, barley, oilseed rape, durum wheat, oats, sugar beet and grapes), with escapes (sunflower); and all have potential to cross-pollinate fields non-GM crops. Several fodder crops, forestry trees, grasses and ornamentals have varieties in field trials and these too may hybridise with wild relatives in the European flora (alfalfa, clover, lupin, silver birch, sweet chestnut, Norway spruce, Scots pine, poplar, elm, Agrostis canina, A. stolonifera, Festuca arundinacea, Lolium perenne, L. multiflorum, statice and rose). All these crops will require containment strategies to be in place if it is deemed necessary to prevent transgene movement to wild relatives and non-GM crops. Current Containment Strategies A wide variety of GM containment strategies are currently under development, with a particular focus on crops expressing pharmaceutical products. Physical containment in greenhouses and growth rooms is suitable for some crops (tomatoes, lettuce) and for research purposes. Aquatic bioreactors of some non-crop species (algae, moss, and duckweed) expressing pharmaceutical products have been adopted by some biotechnology companies. There are obvious limitations of the scale of physical containment strategies, addressed in part by the development of large underground facilities in the US and Canada. The additional resources required to grow plants underground incurs high costs that in the long term may negate any advantage of GM for commercial productioNatural genetic containment has been adopted by some companies through the selection of either non-food/feed crops (algae, moss, duckweed) as bio-pharming platforms or organisms with no wild relatives present in the local flora (safflower in the Americas). The expression of pharmaceutical products in leafy crops (tobacco, alfalfa, lettuce, spinach) enables growth and harvesting prior to and in the absence of flowering. Transgenically controlled containment strategies range in their approach and degree of development. Plastid transformation is relatively well developed but is not suited to all traits or crops and does not offer complete containment. Male sterility is well developed across a range of plants but has limitations in its application for fruit/seed bearing crops. It has been adopted in some commercial lines of oilseed rape despite not preventing escape via seed. Conditional lethality can be used to prevent flowering or seed development following the application of a chemical inducer, but requires 100% induction of the trait and sufficient application of the inducer to all plants. Equally, inducible expression of the GM trait requires equally stringent application conditions. Such a method will contain the trait but will allow the escape of a non-functioning transgene. Seed lethality (‘terminator’ technology) is the only strategy at present that prevents transgene movement via seed, but due to public opinion against the concept it has never been trialled in the field and is no longer under commercial development. Methods to control flowering and fruit development such as apomixis and cleistogamy will prevent crop-to-wild and wild-to-crop pollination, but in nature both of these strategies are complex and leaky. None of the genes controlling these traits have as yet been identified or characterised and therefore have not been transgenically introduced into crop species. Neither of these strategies will prevent transgene escape via seed and any feral apomicts that form are arguably more likely to become invasives. Transgene mitigation reduces the fitness of initial hybrids and so prevents stable introgression of transgenes into wild populations. However, it does not prevent initial formation of hybrids or spread to non-GM crops. Such strategies could be detrimental to wild populations and have not yet been demonstrated in the field. Similarly, auxotrophy prevents persistence of escapes and hybrids containing the transgene in an uncontrolled environment, but does not prevent transgene movement from the crop. Recoverable block of function, intein trans-splicing and transgene excision all use recombinases to modify the transgene in planta either to induce expression or to prevent it. All require optimal conditions and 100% accuracy to function and none have been tested under field conditions as yet. All will contain the GM trait but all will allow some non-native DNA to escape to wild populations or to non-GM crops. There are particular issues with GM trees and grasses as both are largely undomesticated, wind pollinated and perennial, thus providing many opportunities for hybridisation. Some species of both trees and grass are also capable of vegetative propagation without sexual reproduction. There are additional concerns regarding the weedy nature of many grass species and the long-term stability of GM traits across the life span of trees. Transgene stability and conferred sterility are difficult to trial in trees as most field trials are only conducted during the juvenile phase of tree growth. Bio-pharming of pharmaceutical and industrial compounds in plants Bio-pharming of pharmaceutical and industrial compounds in plants offers an attractive alternative to mammalian-based pharmaceutical and vaccine production. Several plantbased products are already on the market (Prodigene’s avidin, β-glucuronidase, trypsin generated in GM maize; Ventria’s lactoferrin generated in GM rice). Numerous products are in clinical trials (collagen, antibodies against tooth decay and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from tobacco; human gastric lipase, therapeutic enzymes, dietary supplements from maize; Hepatitis B and Norwalk virus vaccines from potato; rabies vaccines from spinach; dietary supplements from Arabidopsis). The initial production platforms for plant-based pharmaceuticals were selected from conventional crops, largely because an established knowledge base already existed. Tobacco and other leafy crops such as alfalfa, lettuce and spinach are widely used as leaves can be harvested and no flowering is required. Many of these crops can be grown in contained greenhouses. Potato is also widely used and can also be grown in contained conditions. The introduction of morphological markers may aid in the recognition and traceability of crops expressing pharmaceutical products. Plant cells or plant parts may be transformed and maintained in culture to produce recombinant products in a contained environment. Plant cells in suspension or in vitro, roots, root cells and guttation fluid from leaves may be engineered to secrete proteins that may be harvested in a continuous, non-destructive manner. Most strategies in this category remain developmental and have not been commercially adopted at present. Transient expression produces GM compounds from non-GM plants via the utilisation of bacterial or viral vectors. These vectors introduce the trait into specific tissues of whole plants or plant parts, but do not insert them into the heritable genome. There are some limitations of scale and the field release of such crops will require the regulation of the vector. However, several companies have several transiently expressed products in clinical and pre-clinical trials from crops raised in physical containment.

Economic and agronomic impact of commercialised GM crops: a meta-analysis

The present paper presents a meta-analysis of the economic and agronomic performance of genetically modified (GM) crops worldwide. Bayesian, classical and non-parametric approaches were used to evaluate the performance of GM crops v. their conventional counterparts. The two main GM crop traits (herbicide tolerant (HT) and insect resistant (Bt)) and three of the main GM crops produced worldwide (Bt cotton, HT soybean and Bt maize) were analysed in terms of yield, production cost and gross margin. The scope of the analysis covers developing and developed countries, six world regions, and all countries combined. Results from the statistical analyses indicate that GM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) terms. Regarding countries’ level of development, GM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries, with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grown.

GM crops, developing countries and food security

The agronomic and economic performance of genetically modified (GM) crops relative to their conventional counterparts has been largely investigated worldwide. As a result there is considerable information to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the agronomic and economic relative performance of GM crops vs. non GM crops by crop, GM trait, and country’s level of development. Such meta-analysis has been recently conducted showing that overall GM crops outperform non GM crops in both agronomic and economic terms (1). This paper focuses on the agronomic and economic performance of GM crops in developing and developed countries as well as the potential implications for global food security of adoption of GM crops by developing countries. The presumption that technology only benefits the developed world is not supported by the meta-analysis conducted. No evidence that GM technology benefits moredeveloped than developing countries was found. Indeed, the agronomic and economic performance of GM crops vs. conventional crops tends to be better for developing than for developed countries. Although it is manifested that the conventional agronomic practices in developing countries are different to those in developed countries, it is also apparent that GM crop adoption in developing countries may help to tackle the growing concerns over the scarcity of food globally.

Africa and Asia need a rational debate on GM crops

Policy-makers in developing countries should not be swayed by the politicized arguments dominant in Europe

Farmers' interest in growing GM crops in the UK, in the context of a range of on-farm coexistence issues

Although no GM crops currently are licensed for commercial production in the UK, as opposition to GM crops by consumers softens, this could change quickly. Although past studies have examined attitudes of UK farmers toward GM technologies in general, there has been little work on the impact of possible coexistence measures on their attitudes toward GM crop production. This could be because the UK Government has not engaged in any public dialogue on the coexistence measures that might be applied on farms. Based on a farm survey, this article examines farmers’ attitudes toward GM technologies and planting intentions for three crops (maize, oilseed rape, and sugar beet) based on a GM availability scenario. The article then nuances this analysis with a review of farmer perceptions of the level of constraint associated with a suite of notional farm-level coexistence measures and issues, based on current European Commission guidelines and practice in other EU Member States.

Effects of biotechnology on biodiversity: herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant GM crops

Biodiversity is threatened by agriculture as a whole, and particularly also by traditional methods of agriculture. Knowledge-based agriculture, including GM crops, can reduce this threat in the future. The introduction of no-tillage practices, which are beneficial for soil fertility, has been encouraged by the rapid spread of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in the USA. The replacement of pesticides through Bt crops is advantageous for the non-target insect fauna in test-fields. The results of the British Farm Scale experiment are discussed. Biodiversity differences can mainly be referred to as differences in herbicide application management.