The case for GMOs

The case for GMOs

Genetically modified (GM) traits can be valuable and the discussion around them should be based on facts and in a case-by-case approach, according to an Ethiopian geneticist doing his postdoctoral research at Aarhus University in Denmark.

A recent report by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service welcoming the Government of Ethiopia’s (GOE) approval of commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) cotton and confined field trail on GM maize has ignited a public debate over deployment of GM seeds. With generic discussions focusing on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) collectively rather than individual GM traits, opinions are as divided as one might expect. In addition, fundamental misconceptions appear to prevail inter-twined with some facts.
The author of this article is fundamentally in favor of agricultural biotechnology in which GM is a component. As an additional tool at the disposal of plant and animal breeders, there are things breeders can do with GM, which cannot, or can only be done with great difficulty, by other means. Transfer of specific identified genetic variants (or even whole genes) between species or distant varieties/breeds is one example. The genome of organisms can be altered to contain such genetic variants so that the genetically modified organism (GMO) can express the desired trait, which could, for instance, be drought-tolerance. In principle, this could allow increased yield and lower production costs, which translates to increased farm income. However, as in any tool, moving a GM trait into a certain production system should be evaluated for its relevance and potential impacts across a wide range of perspectives applicable to the specific production environment. While acknowledging the fact that whether or not to deploy GM traits must, in the end, be decision citizens as a whole need to discuss, it is argued here that a case-by-case conversation on individual GM varieties and traits rather than a wholesale conclusion on GMOs is in the public’s best interest. Furthermore, such discussions require presenting the public with scientific facts rather than promoting myths and misconceptions.

Thousands of years of genome alterations


A typical misconception is the assumption that altering the genomes of plants and animals begun with the emergence of GM in recent decades. In fact, people have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for thousands of years starting from domestication through to traditional selection and modern-day breeding. In what can be regarded as evolution fast-forwarded, artificial selection has led to the development of a wide variety of crops and breeds of animals. This is achieved by causing a gradual increase in the frequencies of naturally occurring favorable genetic variants in the population.
In recent decades, however, advances in genetic engineering have allowed direct genetic modification (GM) of organisms allowing precise control over the genetic changes introduced into an organism like the aforementioned example of transfer of specifically identified variants. Agricultural applications of GM have relatively advanced in crop production in comparison to animal farming. Most dominant modifications so far include crops modified to express the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin- a natural insecticide, and crops modified to herbicide tolerance (HT). These modifications or gene introgressions can be made on different varieties of various crops. As of 2018, 191.7 million hectares of GM crops were planted by up to 17 million farmers in 26 countries.

Ethiopia is not a pioneer in Africa!
An additional misconception that should be untangled from the ongoing conversation is one that alludes to the GOE’s approval of a GM crop as a “breakaway” position from an “African consensus” on the ban against GM. Some going as far as speculating the decision might cost the country’s “Pan-African environmental leadership”. Whether or not Ethiopia has such a “leadership” in the first place is debatable in itself, but nothing can be further from the truth than assuming the decision as a “break-away” from African consensus on GM ban. Neither is Ethiopia an African pioneer to approve GM crops nor is there a continent-wide consensus over the ban. GM crops have been commercially cultivated in Africa since as early as 1998. Commercial cultivation in South Africa begun in 1998 reaching 2.1 million hectares of land covered with biotech maize, including Bt maize, by 2014. Burkina Faso and Egypt followed in 2008. Sudan initiated commercial GM cotton in 2012 and by the end of 2018 had 0.2 million hectares of land covered with biotech crops, a significant part of which was Bt cotton. Other African countries were conducting trials on GM crops with approvals for commercial cultivation widely expected soon. Kenya, for instance, had already approved field trials for Bt maize back in 2016. In 2019, the Kenyan government further granted approval for Bt cotton cultivation, in a move welcomed by its agricultural research community. There appears to be a tendency to equate The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, adopted on 29th January 2000, as a consensus on a collective ban against GMOs. The Protocol is an international agreement which aims to ensure the safe handling, transport, and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology on the precautionary principle (PP). Opponents often invoke the PP to justify a ban on GM, but proponents see these as selective applications of the PP.

GM can be a valuable tool but is no cure-all
Proponents of GM argue that adoption can lead to increased yields, decreased insecticide applications, reduced drudgery, and the use of environmentally friendly herbicides. Several studies have reported and quantified such benefits. Based on a meta-analysis of publications from several countries on the farm-level costs and benefits of GM cotton and maize, Finger et al (2011) conclude that adoption of the GM crops led on average to higher economic performance. Another meta-study published in 2014 estimates a 22% increase in global yield from GM crops while reducing pesticide (active ingredient) usage by 37% and environmental impact (insecticide and herbicide use) by 18%. For countries with foreign currency bottlenecks like Ethiopia, reduced usage of inputs such as pesticide, insecticide, and herbicide translate to substantial foreign currency savings. Opponents of GM who argue that GM crops tend to benefit the better off and do not accommodate the resource-poor farmers often challenge such reports. However, studies at smallholder levels too appear to indicate beneficial effects for some GM varieties. For instance, a study in South Africa showed that laborsaving benefits of Bt- and HT- maize varieties made them particularly preferable among smallholder women. A 2013 review by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) indicates that nearly all available peer-reviewed publications on Bt cotton in South Africa (mainly focusing on smallholder farmers) report yield increase with the use of Bt cotton compared to conventional varieties. Similar success stories are reported for Bt cotton in Burkina Faso. Carefully and selectively deployed, GM traits have the potential to improve productivity and enhance food security. GM also offers an adaptive capacity against an increasingly unpredictable future.
However, there are limitations to how much we can do with GM traits. There were instances where some varieties with GM traits added no value compared to the conventional varieties under specific constraints. For instance, South Africa once rejected a GM maize variety developed by the US giant Monsanto after studies showed statistically insignificant superiority compared to the conventional maize in water-limited conditions despite Monsanto’s claim of improved drought-tolerance. This could be variety-specific shortcomings and might not be taken as an inherent limitation of GM.
However, inherent challenges exist too. So far, only a handful of traits are moved around through GM and these are mostly related to tolerance to biotic and abiotic challenges. For some of the most important yield traits, it will be very difficult to identify suitable candidate variants to move around owing to the underlying oligo- or poly-genic control. Thus, GM will have to integrate with conventional breeding, which will continue to provide the bulk of the genetic gain.

A pair of zebu oxen pulling a maresha, the traditional plough photo by Philippe Compain

Careful evaluation of possible impacts
Many concerns have been raised against GM crops but the facts must be untangled from the misconceptions. One important concern among the public has been over the safety of consuming GM-sourced foods. So far, studies by national and international organizations reveal no demonstrated toxic or nutritionally harmful effects of foods derived from any of the widely available GM crops. The official position of the World Health Organization states: “GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

Additionally, there are legitimate concerns related to control of patented GM crops by corporations, which dis-advantages smallholders who tend to save and re-use seeds. “Technology fee”, through patents tend to increase GM seed prices over conventional varieties. However, it should be noted that the same problem applies to some conventional hybrid seeds that are patented by private companies. In the author’s opinion, this is precisely why national agricultural research institutions, as well as their international partners, must leave the back seat and take center stage in the GM R&D to effectively prevent this technology from being a private sector monopoly. Public research institutions can, through research, be able to develop GM seeds using genes in the public domain. Additionally, public-private partnership models can be adopted to ensure resource-poor farmers’ access to transgenic traits in developing countries. Public-private crop breeding initiatives in South Africa and similar pilot projects in Kenya can be good models to scale-out. The adoption of GM crops might also negatively affect export to countries where such products might not be marketed. Thus deployment should be carefully aligned with each country’s agricultural export priorities.

The most pressing concern raised against commercial cultivation of GM crops is the possibility of transgenic contaminations to non-GM varieties, thus threatening biodiversity. Transgenic contamination from the Bt maize in Mexico has been a popular case.
In the author’s view, this calls for immense caution but does not warrant a complete ban. Technical measures can be put in place to minimize risks. For instance, various spatial and time segregation measures of coexistence can be adopted as seen in some European countries. With spatial measures, some countries establish buffer zones between GM and non-GM farms with specifics varying to individual species and between the countries. Time segregation entails to the time difference between cultivating GM and non-GM varieties of the same crop on the same or neighboring lands. For example, some European countries insist that after cultivating GM maize, farmers must wait between one and 10 years before growing non-GM maize on the same field. Others require off-season planting of GM crops to avoid cross-pollination. However, keeping crops free from transgenic contamination requires constant effort throughout the entire value chain, not just at the farm level. Countries have been putting regulations to this effect including labeling of GM products. However, none of these measures can be adequately implemented in the absence of effective and functional regulatory institutions.

Conclusion
GM can be a valuable tool for productivity improvement. Merits and impacts should be evaluated for individual GM varieties on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket ban. National agricultural research systems should be engaged in GM R&D to prevent this tool from being a private sector monopoly. Effective and functional regulatory institutions are indispensable.

Main Image: A compound salad at Chimaki Bet in the Legahar area of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Observer.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. Please cite Ethiopia Observer prominently and link clearly to the original article if you republish. If you have any queries, please contact us at ethiopiaobserver@protonmail.com. Check individual images for licensing details.

Share this post

14 thoughts on “The case for GMOs

  1. This article white-washes the horrific effects of GMOs in destroying the crop diversity of the country. How can a person who claims to be an expert on the matter disregards basic facts such as Ethiopia has helped to preserve many species of crops that were about to disappear from the rest of the world? For those interested, it is important to underline how the country has been considered a center of diversity for barely and coffee and used in breeding programs throughout the world especially to incorporate resistance to diseases as BYDV, smuts, powdery mildew, scald, and net blotch. Dr. Sara Tewolde-Berhan, daughter of Tewolde-Berhan Gebreegziabher, in a recent interview said that some twenty years ago the beer barely was about to disappear because of a disease called powdery mildew. A disease-resistant type was found in Ethiopia. There was also some years where there was a risk for coffee because of coffee berry disease. A species that resist this disease was also found in Ethiopia. So this guy is telling you all this does not matter, we should incorporate GMOS at the risks of losing this deverstiy.

    1. Ethiopia should not continue to be a resistant crop varieties bank to the rest of the world who is benefiting from GM’s production advantages while Ethiopians are suffering from malnutrition, poverty and related consequences. We can always preserve our varieties in our gene banks and use them for R&D whenever needed.
      I agree with the writer‘s conclusion that a “case-by-case“ approach is best to decide on individual GM organisms.

      1. So GMOs would save us from malnutrition, poverty, and related consequences? Where is the proof?
        The most thorough and complete review on the subject was done by the American National Academies of Sciences— a hulking 420-page report. It’s an independent look at all the research on GMOs to date, vetted for conflicts of interest.
        It says that there’s little evidence that current GM crops have greatly boosted potential yields. In fact, conventional plant-breeding techniques appear to be more successful on this score thus far. On the other hand, some insect-resistant GM traits do appear to have increased actual yield for certain crops by minimizing pest losses in places like India or the United States. So it’s a mixed bag.
        https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11690992/gmos-review-evidence-safety-health

        1. Have you actually read the article you just linked to? It distinguishes between POTENTIAL yield and ACTUAL yield. It states that GM hasn’t been shown to successfully improve POTENTIAL yield, but it can increase the ACTUAL yield farmers get through reducing yield losses to diseases, weeds and pests. That means that GM technology does have the potential to help farmers by reducing the amount of crop they lose to diseases/weeds/pests.

          GMO technology needs to be evaluated by a case-by-case basis as if approved of correctly, it could have a real benefit to Ethiopian farmers.

  2. I found it a fair and balanced opinion although i wished the author can expand the brief discussion on “Importance of regulatory institutions” and his opinion if Ethiopia is well fit in that regards. I guess it matters a lot as the author also briefly put it.

  3. The author cites WHO to say “GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” Yes, I do understand how come the author cites WHO to make his point as it is the world authority on anything related to our health. But as uncomfortable as it is, we have to raise the question. Is WHO independent and who are the biggest funders? One important information is the second-largest funder is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which provides 9.8% of the WHO’s funds, whose investments in Monsanto and Cargill have come under heavy criticism. Is it farfetched to assume that WHO is reflecting the interest of these groups? For me, it is not.
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/who-funds-world-health-organization-un-coronavirus-pandemic-covid-trump/
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/sep/29/gates-foundation-gm-monsanto

    1. A well balanced and written piece information. There are situations GMO can help Ethiopia its growing population or fiber production such as GMO cotton can help its garment industry. GMO crops would not kill genetic diversity in Ethiopia. Poor crop yields and poverty is a more serious issue in Ethiopia as is in other developing countries. Low yield and poverty will lead to starvation and land degradation and the reduction of forest long-term poverty.

  4. Anyone here knows how the decision was made by Ethiopian authorities? I mean the process. I remember Yara of Norway awarding Meles $200K cash prize (read bribed) to allow fertilizers into the country. Meles then pushed use of fertilizers on farmers and later as a political cudgle to punish those who did not vote for Tplf/Eprdf.

    1. The Burkina Faso case is NOT inherent to the ineffectiveness of the bt-technology against the boll worm (insect). It was rather because of the short fiber-length of the cotton varieties the bt-gene was incorporated into (varietal characteristics!). Even then the decision was that of the seed companies (French owned ones!), not the farmers. The farmers were very happy with the incredible reduction of drudgery to control the insect (socio-economic advantages with gender impact, which we do not often talk about).

  5. Fair, balanced, scientific and educational piece. The key points are “case-by-case” approach and “biosafety regulatory capacity”. In addition, it is more than two-decades since GM-crops appeared in the global scene and therefore we have ample empirical evidences from Asia and Africa (not to mention Latin America).

    – Sudan almost abandoned cotton cultivation (because of high-cost of production to control the bollworm insect). This technology revived cotton production in Sudan (btw; the variety was from China) and more investment.

    – India produces 11 million hectares of bt-cotton. and China 4 million ha. annually. I do not believe Narendra Modi and Xi Ping are that insane to allow such level of GMO production unless they saw something beneficial not only to the farmers but also at industrial level. In three years, India became net exporter (from an importer) of fiber.

    – Many tend to believe that European countries are against this technology. please check out how much GM-soya bean and maize Europe is importing for its feed industry from the Americas, and why?

    Recently, I have read some renewed out-right rejection opinion pieces. Most of them were as they were framed more than twenty-years ago. While anyone can have opinion about GMOs, he/she does not have monopoly on the facts. Ethiopia has capable institutions – EIAR (National Agricultural Research Systems + Universities), Environment Commission (regulatory), Biotechnology Institute, Academy of Sciences etc – that can manage the adoption process and advise the Gov’t on policy choices and regulatory procedures. We can support this policy decision-making by transitioning the discussion from “debate” to “dialogue”. Otherwise, we only add more confusion.

    If I may add, genetic engineering (transgenic) is becoming kind of “old-fashioned” and the discussion is moving towards genome/gene editing, gene-drive, and next is synthetic biology. I hope our institutions are up to speed on this.

    Thank you!

  6. An excellent article. Scientific issues presented in a way the general public can pleasantly read and understand. My only downside is he really avoided giving us his opinion on the cream of the matter here. Does he support or criticise the specific approval of the government of Ethiopia? He started the article with that so i was assuming he would say something specific but didn’t.
    I hope this person gives us another piece addressing this issue more directly.
    I highly appreciated the effort to provide the public with info though. Ethiopian intellectuals everywhere should devote time for their country. Thanks

Comments are closed.