Menu

Considerations for Genetically Modified Organisms and GM foods 14 Feb 2018

Cattle feeding on GMO livestock feed

Globally, food security has continued to be one of the greatest development challenges. Several efforts aimed at ensuring the availability of nutritious foods for the growing global population have been put together. These solutions include strategies to increase yield through the use of fertilizers, breeding programmes, food waste reduction strategies, improved irrigation, and better methods of monitoring and evaluating food production and distribution.
    
Nevertheless, world hunger is on the increase. Therefore, policies must be put in place to not only increase food production but to also do so sustainably, in the face of existing environmental challenges such as desertification, flooding, salinification, drought and natural disasters, which threaten food production across the globe.

Because of the effects of climate change on agricultural activities and the need to increase food production by 50 percent so we can have enough to feed a projected global population of about 10 billion by 2050, scientists and food security experts keep looking for ways to address the challenge of food insecurity. One very controversial resolve is the development and use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

GMOs are plants and animals whose genetic make-ups have been altered or modified in the laboratory to incorporate genes from other organisms. This process, known as genetic engineering (GE), is usually done to add new traits or characteristics that scientists think would be beneficial. These traits could vary from disease resistance to longer shelf life, as well as colours and flavours of various kinds.

Genetically modified foods are foods produced from organisms – plants and animals – that have had changes introduced into their DNA using GE as opposed to traditional cross-breeding. Suffice to note that the traditional cross-breeding method, which has been practiced for hundreds of years, involves the collection of pollens from one plant and transferring them to the pistil of another plant with desirable characters. The resulting seeds are then evaluated to check for the presence of desirable traits. It can take several years, sometimes ten or more years, to cross-plant and select improved varieties. This is one of the limitations  of the traditional method of breeding.

Another limitation to the traditional method of genetic modification is the transfer of undesirable traits along with the traits of interest. For example, all 100,000 traits of a plant's genes could be mixed up while the breeder might only be interested in a few genetic traits.

Genetic engineering is not bound by these limitations. The process requires removing the DNA and the specific gene(s) for one or a few desirable traits from one organism (microbes inclusive) and transferring them into another organism (plant or animal).

An example of this is the Bt sweet corn. In the past 20 years, sweet corn has been genetically engineered to possess some insecticidal properties using Bacillus thuringiensis – a soil bacterium, which produces a protein crystal that is toxic to certain insects. The aim of incorporating Bt to the sweet corn is for the plant to express or produce this insecticidal protein by itself. Since 1996, Bt corn has been cultivated in the United States and most of the modified corn has been used for animal feed or processed into corn meal, starch, and other products.

This modified sweet corn can reduce the need for application of insecticide by 70 to 90 percent. A reduction of this magnitude can positively impact the environment and reduce farmers' production costs. GE has produced plants with innate resistance to pests and diseases, and tolerance to herbicides. Examples of such plants include the virus-resistant squash and papaya; herbicide-tolerant soybean, alfalfa and canola.

GE has also been applied to both aquatic lives and livestock. The production of fast-growing fishes, cheaper and more effective vaccines to prevent livestock diseases are a few more examples. GE has also led to the development of livestock feeds that increase nutrient absorption in farm animals.

Given the positive economic and nutritional benefits of GMOs in food production, it is, therefore, puzzling to continue to witness the public backlash over GM foods.   

The major concern raised by opponents of GMOs is the unpredictable environmental impact of such crops. This has led to the ban on the cultivation of genetically modified crops in 38 countries. These countries are Algeria, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belize, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Northern Ireland (Scotland, Wales), Norway, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

But most of the countries that prohibit the cultivation of GMOs still allow the importation of GMO products, especially animal feeds. For instance, although majority of the European Union countries blocked the cultivation of these GMOs within their borders, over 30 million tonnes of GM grains (corn and soy-based animal feeds) are imported annually into the EU. Many other nations, including China, Japan and Canada, for example, would only resist GMO products that do not pass regulatory standards.

To be sure, the move to ban the cultivation or importation of GMO products is usually not science-driven. Scientists have come out with public statements demonstrating that GM products are safe. More than 280 scientific and technical institutions across major countries support the safety of GM crops and over 3,000 scientific studies have assessed their safety for human health and the environment. In other words, GM crops do not possess higher risks than those developed by conventional breeding techniques.

One of the reasons for the restrictions on GM products in certain countries is often attributed to trade protectionism, which favours large corporations who play huge roles in the development and implementation of GM products, while also making huge profits from them. Public uneasiness, pressure from activists who are not comfortable with the term 'genetic modification' and the possibility of undesirable long-term consequences such as diminished biodiversity through the loss of traditional crops, are other reasons for the bias against GM foods.

Around the world, 18 million farms in 28 countries – 20 developing and eight industrialised countries – cultivate GMO crops on about 450 million acres. These countries include the United States with over 175 million acres; Brazil with about 110 million acres; Argentina (61 million acres); India (29 million acres); China (10 million acres); Canada (27 million acres); Paraguay (10 million acres); South Africa (7 million acres); Uruguay (4 million acres); Pakistan (7 million acres); Bolivia (1 million acres). Other nations with half a million acres or less are Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Australia, Columbia, Cuba, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Czech Republic, Mexico, Portugal, Myanmar, Slovakia, Sudan, Spain and Romania.

So far, large scale agricultural producers mostly in developed countries have benefitted more from GMOs. For us to ensure that resource-poor farmers in developing countries also benefit substantially, more research and implementation plans must be directed towards these countries and their disadvantaged farmers. Developing nations must also find ways to guarantee that increased production benefits the poor and food-insecure.

Another very important step towards expanding the production of GMOs in developing countries is to exercise caution and thorough ethical considerations on how this powerful tool could be used. Developing countries looking to increase food production through the cultivation of GM products must have a clear and active regulatory policy and responsive bodies to carry out risk analysis. All possible safety measures and long-term tests must be carried out before any biotechnology product is released. Accurate risk management and effective communication cannot be overemphasized as stressed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).

In fact, strict monitoring and evaluation must have been done over a period of time before such products are released. More so, human rights to adequate food and informed choices must be respected. Democratic participation in debates and decision-making concerning new technologies should also be encouraged. The poor and powerless in under-served communities who are mostly farmers with little or no education should also be brought into the conversation and allowed to choose products that best suit their needs.

Combined with improved farming systems, adequate irrigation, waste reduction and stronger research and test tools, GMOs can help provide more food options in periods of environmental and climatic distress. This can become a promising approach to ensuring food security now and in the future.

Financial Nigeria Columnist, Mojisola Ojebode, is a Nigerian biochemist and the founder and product developer at Moepelorse Bio Resources. She is also a Global Innovation Through Science and Technology (GIST) awardee, a Mandela Washington fellow, and an Aspen New Voices fellow.