Easac Planting the Future Full Report

8/13/2019 Easac Planting the Future Full Report

1/78

easac

building science into EU policy

Planting the future: opportunities andchallenges for using crop genetic improvementtechnologies for sustainable agriculture

EASAC policy report 21

June 2013

ISBN: 978-3-8047-3181-3

This report can be found atwww.easac.eu
http://www.easac.eu/http://www.easac.eu/


2/78

EASAC

EASAC the European Academies Science Advisory Council is formed by the national science academies of theEU Member States to enable them to collaborate with each other in giving advice to European policy-makers. It thusprovides a means for the collective voice of European science to be heard.

Its mission reflects the view of academies that science is central to many aspects of modern life and that an appreciationof the scientific dimension is a pre-requisite to wise policy-making. This view already underpins the work of manyacademies at national level. With the growing importance of the European Union as an arena for policy, academiesrecognise that the scope of their advisory functions needs to extend beyond the national to cover also the Europeanlevel. Here it is often the case that a trans-European grouping can be more effective than a body from a single country.The academies of Europe have therefore formed EASAC so that they can speak with a common voice with the goal ofbuilding science into policy at EU level.

Through EASAC, the academies work together to provide independent, expert, evidence-based advice about thescientific aspects of public policy to those who make or influence policy within the European institutions. Drawing on thememberships and networks of the academies, EASAC accesses the best of European science in carrying out its work. Itsviews are vigorously independent of commercial or political bias, and it is open and transparent in its processes. EASACaims to deliver advice that is comprehensible, relevant and timely.

EASAC covers all scientific and technical disciplines, and its experts are drawn from all the countries of the EuropeanUnion. It is funded by the member academies and by contracts with interested bodies. The expert members of EASACsworking groups give their time free of charge. EASAC has no commercial or business sponsors.

EASACs activities include substantive studies of the scientific aspects of policy issues, reviews and advice about specificpolicy documents, workshops aimed at identifying current scientific thinking about major policy issues or at briefingpolicy-makers, and short, timely statements on topical subjects.

The EASAC Council has 28 individual members highly experienced scientists nominated one each by the nationalscience academies of EU Member States, by the Academia Europaea and by ALLEA. The national science academiesof Norway and Switzerland are also represented. The Council is supported by a professional Secretariat based atthe Leopoldina, the German National Academy of Sciences, in Halle (Saale) and by a Brussels Office at the Royal

Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium. The Council agrees the initiation of projects, appoints members ofworking groups, reviews drafts and approves reports for publication.

To find out more about EASAC, visit the website www.easac.eu or contact the EASAC Secretariat [email protected]
http://www.easac.eu/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.easac.eu/


3/78

Planting the future: opportunities and

challenges for using crop genetic improvement

technologies for sustainable agriculture

easac


4/78

ii | June 2013 |Planting the future EASAC

ISBN 978-3-8047-3181-3

German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina 2013

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, no part of this publica-

tion may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of

the publisher, or in accordance with the terms of licenses issued by the appropriate reproduction rights organisation.

Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to:

EASAC Secretariat

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina

German National Academy of Sciences

Jgerberg 1

D-06108 Halle (Saale)

Germany

tel: +49 (0)345 4723 9833

fax: +49 (0)345 4723 9839

email: [email protected]: www.easac.eu

Cover image: Germination, the initial stage in the continuous processes of plant development

Copy-edited and typeset in Frutiger by The Clyvedon Press Ltd, Cardiff, United Kingdom

Printed by DVZ-Daten-Service GmbH, Halle/Saale, Germany
mailto:[email protected]://www.easac.eu/http://www.easac.eu/mailto:[email protected]


5/78

EASAC Planting the future | June 2013 | iii

Contents

page

Foreword v

Summary 1

1 Introduction 31.1 Global societal challenges 31.2 The strategic framework for generating and using science 31.3 Adopting new technologies 41.4 Assessing impact of new technologies 51.5 Previous work by national academies of science in the EU 51.6 Objectives and scope of the present report 6

2 International comparison of policy choices and GM experience 92.1 Introduction 9

2.2 Emerging trends 102.2.1 Agricultural production 102.2.2 International trade 102.2.3 Global trends in agricultural research and development 112.3 Reported impacts and the implications for science, innovation and regulation in

comparator countries 122.3.1 Reported impact of GM herbicide-tolerant soybean in Argentina 122.3.2 Socio-economic impact of Bt cotton in India 132.3.3 Bt cotton in Australia: a case history 142.3.4 Trends in GM research in Brazil 152.3.5 The Canadian Regulatory System for Plants with Novel Traits 162.4 Cross-cutting issues from international comparisons 18

3 The connections between the EU and Africa 193.1 Prospects for agricultural biotechnology in Africa 193.2 Historical influences: the view from outside Africa 203.3 EASACNASAC collaboration to seek African country perspectives on the relationship with the EU 213.3.1 Case studies on GM crops 213.3.2 What was the previous EU impact on agricultural biotechnology in Africa? 233.3.3 How might the EU help African countries in the future? 23

4 Connecting the evidence base and EU policy development 254.1 Emerging conclusions on global socio-economic and environmental impacts 254.2 Reforming EU regulatory approaches 264.3 Impact on the science base 284.4 Impact on new technology development 294.5 Public attitudes and engagement 304.6 Intellectual property 304.7 Looking forward: new challenges, new products, new strategies 324.7.1 Shifting pathogen populations and other environmental changes 324.7.2 The food crop pipeline 324.7.3 New applications for the bioeconomy 334.8 Appreciating the new realities and addressing policy disconnects 34

5 Conclusions and recommendations 37


6/78

iv | June 2013 |Planting the future EASAC

Appendix 1 Working Group 41

Appendix 2 Relevant previous publications by member academies of EASAC 43

Appendix 3 Background information on comparator countries 45

Appendix 4 Methodological difficulties in measuring the socio-economic

impact of GM crops 51

Appendix 5 Perspectives from African countries on innovation in agriculturalbiotechnology 53

List of abbreviations 57

References 59


7/78

EASAC Planting the future | June 2013 | v

The world continues to face major problems in aimingto deliver food security alongside increasing pressuresfrom population growth, climate change and economicand social instability. Global problems require globalaction and, collectively, we should use the best science,

technology and innovation to tackle the challenges. TheEuropean Union (EU) is not immune from the problemsand must do more to establish innovation in agriculture,to satisfy a greater proportion of domestic demands forfood, feed and the other products of the bioeconomywhile, at the same time, contributing research andinnovation to help resolve the global challenges.

Many of the academies of science in Europe havepreviously drawn attention to the role that biosciencescan play in the sustainable intensification of agriculture:improving efficiency in production and avoiding further

loss of biodiversity. Previous work by the EuropeanAcademies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) hashighlighted the importance of better characterising,conserving and using plant genetic resources for foodand agriculture. The present report makes the casefor using crop genetic improvement technologies forenhanced agricultural production. This need is immediate.EASAC also emphasises that these paths to innovationshould be combined with the deployment of all availableapproaches, traditional and novel, building on existingachievements for good agronomic practice.

Our report draws on the ever-accumulating scientificevidence that continues to define both the currentattainments of crop genetic improvement technologies,including genetic modification (GM), and the potentialvalue that can accrue by capitalising on the scientificopportunities now coming within range. The largebody of international experience gained from differentstrategies and practices helps to reduce uncertaintiesabout the impact of new technologies in agriculture.

In conducting our analysis of the international evidenceand determining the implications for the EU, we initiatedtwo work streams to bring together the available data.

First, we analysed findings from certain other countriesthat are actively adopting biotechnology, to ascertainthe socio-economic and scientific impacts of takingdifferent policy decisions. Secondly, in conjunction withour colleagues in the Network of African Academies(NASAC), we examined the current situation foragricultural biotechnology in Africa and the consequencesfor developing countries of policy choices made in the EU.Our report recommends that current policy disconnects

Foreword

within the EU, acting to impede food security andtrade, must be tackled. In particular, the framework forregulation of agricultural innovation must be revisitedand reformed to take account of the new evidence andexpertise emerging worldwide.

It is noteworthy that a recent joint statement*fromgovernments in the Americas and Australia on innovativeagricultural production technologies, focusing on plantbiotechnology, states the intention to work collaborativelyto promote the application of science-based, transparentand predictable regulatory approaches that fosterinnovation and ensure a safe and reliable global foodsupply, including the cultivation and use of agriculturalproducts derived from innovative technologies. Wecommend this initiative to EU policy-makers as somethingthey should consider strongly supporting.

We address recommendations from our report to policy-makers at the EU level, in the European Commission,European Parliament and Council of Ministers, and inthe Member States, where these matters also requireurgent attention. As these issues are of great relevanceworldwide, we will continue to stimulate analysis anddebate through other academy networks.

A founding principle of EASAC is that objective scientificadvice must be independent of vested political,industrial or other interests. In all of our work we strivein a transparent manner to inform the policy-maker and

other stakeholders of the options available and theirforeseeable consequences. Because some of the matterscovered in our report have long been controversial, ourproject has involved a wide range of scientists fromacross the EU and beyond. The report has been preparedby consultation with a Working Group of academy-nominated experts acting in an independent capacity.I thank the members of this Working Group for theircontinuing commitment in exploring difficult issues andtheir considerable support in helping EASAC compilethis report. I also thank our colleagues in NASAC and theexpert speakers at our joint workshop for their significant

contributions to the project. I thank our independentreferees for their assistance in ensuring the quality ofthe report and the academies in our chosen comparatorcountries for their review of our analysis and conclusions.In addition, I thank our EASAC colleagues on Counciland the Biosciences Steering Panel for their guidancein designing the project and delivering key messages. Ithank the InterAcademy Panel for their support in fundingthe project and the John Templeton Foundation and the

* Joint Statement on Innovative Agricultural Production Technologies, particularly Plant Biotechnologies by Governments ofArgentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Paraguay and the USA, April 2013, available athttp://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/LM%20

statement%20on%20innovative%20ag%20-%20GE%20crops%20-%20Final%20April%202013%20endorsements.pdf .
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/LM%20statement%20on%20innovative%20ag%20-%20GE%20crops%20-%20Final%20April%202013%20endorsements.pdfhttp://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/LM%20statement%20on%20innovative%20ag%20-%20GE%20crops%20-%20Final%20April%202013%20endorsements.pdfhttp://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/LM%20statement%20on%20innovative%20ag%20-%20GE%20crops%20-%20Final%20April%202013%20endorsements.pdfhttp://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/LM%20statement%20on%20innovative%20ag%20-%20GE%20crops%20-%20Final%20April%202013%20endorsements.pdfhttp://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/LM%20statement%20on%20innovative%20ag%20-%20GE%20crops%20-%20Final%20April%202013%20endorsements.pdf


8/78

vi | June 2013 | Planting the future EASAC

discussing key issues with the community-at-large. It isimportant to build on this public dialogue to ensure thatpolicies are based on a shared version of the future and toexplore appropriate governance frameworks to includestakeholders and members of the public. EASAC willcontinue to encourage such engagement with the public,to stimulate debate and inform expectations, about thematters raised here to facilitate the exchange and wise

application of knowledge.

Professor Sir Brian HeapEASAC President

Malaysian Cambridge Studies Centre for their specificfinancial contributions to the workshop in Addis Ababa.

We welcome discussion of any of the points that wehave raised in this report, with the objective of increasingthe impetus for evidence-based policy development.In closing, I emphasise that more public engagementis vitally important if we are to be successful in using

agricultural innovation to deliver food security andcapitalise on the other outputs of the bioeconomy. Inprevious work in this area, many of our academies andour scientific contributors have been actively engaged in


9/78

EASAC Planting the future | June 2013 | 1

the implications for policy-makers of alternative strategicchoices in using the tools, collectively termed crop geneticimprovement technologies, for delivering sustainableagriculture. Our analysis of the international evidence

draws on two main work streams:

A case study comparison of certain countries (in theAmericas and Asia) who have taken a different pathby their decision to adopt GM crops more actively.We review the documented impacts in terms ofenvironmental and socio-economic indicators, andthe implications for the science base, and note thatcomparing different regulatory approaches usedelsewhere might offer new insight for EU policy-makers.

A collaboration with the Network of African Science

Academies (NASAC) to ascertain the current situationregarding crop genetic improvement strategies inAfrican countries and the implications of EU practicesand perspectives on decisions in Africa. The situationacross Africa is diverse but there are now majorinitiatives to use GM crops to address local needs.There is evidence that European influences havesometimes constrained the use of such technologiesin Africa but there are significant opportunities forinternational partnership, informed by local prioritiesand acting to strengthen local systems.

The EASAC Working Group also provided detailedevaluation of a broad range of current issues withinthe EU, relating to regulatory reform, consequencesfor the science base and new technology development(particularly, the New Breeding Techniques), publicengagement, intellectual property and open innovation,increasing environmental challenges, the potential foodcrop pipeline and new applications for the bioeconomy.This broad review of issues revealed several seriousinconsistencies in current EU policy. For example, animportant objective to reduce pesticide use in agricultureis being implemented without sufficient attention paidto facilitating the development of alternative methodsfor protecting crops from pests and diseases. Bringingtogether analysis of the cross-cutting issues for the EUand the international evidence, the EASAC WorkingGroup reached four main conclusions, with extensiveimplications for ascertaining greater coherence in policy-making. These are described below.

1. Land use and innovation: the EU needs to increaseits production and productivity of plant-derived biomassfor food, feed and other applications, thereby decreasingdependency on imports and reducing the regional andglobal environmental impact. Commitment to agricultural

innovation can be expected also to create jobs, benefit

Summary

Agriculture faces major challenges to deliver foodsecurity at a time of increasing pressures from climatechange, social and economic inequity and instability, andthe continuing need to avoid further loss in ecosystem

biodiversity. The introduction of new EU legislationrequiring farmers to reduce reliance on crop protectionchemicals creates additional challenges for maintaininglevels of crop productivity.

Previous European Union (EU) agricultural policy hadfocused on constraining food production but thereis a new realisation that the EU should now increaseits biomass production for food, livestock feed andother uses, including renewable materials to supportthe bioeconomy. The production of more food, moresustainably, requires the development of crops thatcan make better use of limited resources. Agriculturalinnovation can capitalise on the rapid pace of advancein functional genomics research and it is unwise toexclude any technology a priorifor ideological reasons.Sustainable agricultural production and food securitymust harness the potential of biotechnology in all itsfacets.

In previous work, the European Academies ScienceAdvisory Council (EASAC) has described the opportunitiesand challenges in using plant genetic resources inimproved breeding approaches, for example by usingmarker-assisted selection of desired traits. In the

present report, EASAC explores some of the issuesassociated with the genetic modification of crops,where the EU has fallen behind in its adoption of thetechnology, compared with many other regions of theworld. Concerns have been expressed that a time-consuming and expensive regulatory framework in theEU, compounded by politicisation of decision-makingby Member States and coupled with other policyinconsistencies, has tended to act as an impediment toagricultural innovation. Controversies about the impactof genetically modified (GM) crops have too often beenbased on contested science or have confounded effectsof the technology with the impact of agricultureper seor changes in agronomic practice. It is vital to addressthe policy disconnects because there is a wide rangeof opportunities in prospect for improving agriculturalproductivity and efficiency, environmental quality andhuman health, by using all available technologies whereappropriate.

Previous work by member academies of EASAC hasdocumented where there is excellent, relevant scienceto be nurtured and used, and where problems havearisen because of the failure to use science to inform themodernisation of regulatory approaches to benefitrisk

assessment. The goal of the present report is to clarify


10/78

2 | June 2013 |Planting the future EASAC

Regulatory framework: the European Commission,together with the other EU Institutions should re-examineits current policy and principles governing the broadarea of agricultural innovation. This should include forexample, the integration of GM crop objectives withintegrated pest management strategies, and shouldaddress the multiple policy disconnects that are leading toinconsistency in precepts and inefficiency in performance.

The regulatory framework must be reformulatedappropriately to be science-based, transparent,proportionate and predictable, taking into accountthe extensive experience gained and good practiceimplemented worldwide. There is need for urgent actionto agree the status and regulation of New BreedingTechniques and, in particular, to confirm which productsdo not fall within the scope of legislation on geneticallymodified organisms.

Public engagement: the scientific community mustclearly articulate the consequences of research findings

and the opportunities for agricultural innovation. As partof this engagement, EASAC and its member academieswill continue to stimulate discussion with citizens aboutthe key issues raised in this report.

Research and development: opportunities createdby Horizon 2020, the European Research Counciland European Research Area are extremely valuablefor pursuing priorities in plant sciences and relateddisciplines, and can help to attract smaller companies aswell as the public sector to contribute to the knowledge-based economy. There are additional, infrastructuralissues to tackle in support of innovation: (1) although

the relevant science base is still strong in some MemberStates, there is need to support skills provision andresearcher career development, including reversing thedecline in some key scientific disciplines and reducingthe permanent loss of scientists to countries outsidethe EU; (2) revitalising public sector plant breedingefforts and creating opportunities for collaborationbetween the public and private research sectors with thetranslation of scientific outputs to improved agriculturalpractices; (3) clarifying the options for intellectualproperty protection and open innovation; (4) furtherincreasing partnership between scientists in the EU and

developing countries.

International partnership: the EU can learn from therest of the world in characterising and implementinggood regulatory practice, while it must also acknowledgethe international impact of its policies and perspectives.There are new opportunities for sharing experienceand engaging in international research. EASAC standsready to continue playing its part in identifying theseopportunities and stimulating further debate.

rural development and contribute to a growing grossdomestic product. Biotechnology for crop improvementmust be part of the response to societal challenges. TheEU is falling behind new international competitors inagricultural innovation and this has implications for EUgoals for science and innovation and the environment aswell as for agriculture. There is need to improve publicawareness of the scientific, environmental, economic and

strategic issues to help support better informed individualchoices, national political debate and EU priority-setting.The goal is to move from the current situation where thepassive customer merely tolerates technologies to onewhere the active citizen appreciates technologies.

2. Regulation: in common with other sectors, the aimshould be to regulate the trait and/or the product but notthe technology in agriculture. The regulatory frameworkshould be evidence-based. There is no validated evidencethat GM crops have greater adverse impact on health andthe environment than any other technology used in plant

breeding. There is compelling evidence that GM cropscan contribute to sustainable development goals withbenefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and theeconomy. Action is needed to unify and harmonise theregulatory and innovation-enabling roles of the EU policy-making institutions and to ensure that regulation of theoutputs of all the crop genetic improvement technologieshas a firm foundation in sound science.

3. Promoting competition: the current slow andexpensive regulatory situation surrounding GM crops inthe EU encourages monopolies. It is important to exploreways to stimulate open innovation and reformulate

the regulatory framework so as to encourage smallercompanies and public sector activities.

4. The global context: EU policy actions influence thedeveloping world and the wider consequences needto be taken into account when deciding EU strategicoptions. There is evidence that attitudes to GM cropsin the EU have created difficulties for scientists, farmersand politicians in Africa and elsewhere. Establishingthe necessary policy coherence between EU domesticobjectives and a development agenda based onpartnership and innovation is important for the

developing world as well as for Member States.

EASAC judges that the potential benefits of crop geneticimprovement technologies are very significant. Capturingthese benefits should be a matter for urgent attentionby EU policy-makers, alongside the development ofindicators to monitor success in attaining the objectives(for example for efficient and diversified land use). Basedon the preceding conclusions, EASAC recommendationscover the following areas.


11/78


1.1 Global societal challenges

A billion people experience hunger and another billionlack essential vitamins and minerals in their diet (FAO,2010; Fan and Olofinbuyi, 2012). Agriculture faces some

major inter-connected challenges in delivering foodsecurity; sustainably balancing future supply and demand,at a time of increasing pressures from population growth,changing consumption patterns and dietary preferences,and post-harvest losses. These problems are compoundedby climate change, social and economic inequity andinstability, and the continuing imperative to avoid furtherloss in ecosystems biodiversity (IAASTD, 2008; Godfrayet al., 2010). One-quarter of all agricultural land ishighly degraded, yet over the next 40 years, agriculturalproduction must increase by 60%, sustainably and withfairer distribution, to provide global food security, a

major contributor to social stability (OECDFAO, 2012).At the same time, there are growing opportunities anddemands for the use of biomass to provide additionalrenewables, for example energy for heat, power and fuel,pharmaceuticals and green chemical feedstocks.

The European Union (EU) is not immune from thesechallenges for food and other products (EuropeanCommission, 2011b) and there are particular problemsregarding the sustainability of current agriculturalpractices in terms of water and fertiliser use, thedegradation of land with deterioration in soil quality andloss of other natural resources. The introduction of newEU legislation requiring farmers to reduce reliance oncrop protection chemicals creates additional challengesfor maintaining levels of production. For at least thepast decade, yield increases on farms have been limitedor static for most major crops in the EU (House of LordsEuropean Union Committee, 2010) despite the increasinggenetic potential provided by improved varieties andevident from trial plots. The need to increase agriculturalproductivity and efficiency in developed as well as indeveloping countries is now well accepted and this willrequire policy and action to capitalise on the scientificadvances that have emanated from recent publicly

funded investment in the EU and elsewhere.

Previous EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) measuresfocused on constraining production. The lack of politicalpriority to generate greater efficiency in the EU hasinevitably led to considerable exploitation of land massoutside EU borders for EU needs; this is estimated tobe equivalent to the size of Germany (about 35 millionhectares; von Witzke and Noleppa, 2010). As well asbeing a significant exporter, the EU is now the worldslargest importer of agricultural commodities. Currentlyless than half of the food and feed consumed in the EUis produced within its borders (EASAC, 2012). However,

EU policy is changing to support food security (EuropeanCommission 2011b; Joint Research Centre, 2011). Betteruse of advances in science can help to close the presentgap between supply and demand, enabling the EU bothto generate a higher proportion of its domestic food

requirements and to contribute solutions to the globalfood and feed challenges.

1.2 The strategic framework for generating andusing science

The sustainable production of more food requires cropsthat can make better use of limited resources, includingland, water and fertilisers. The necessary strengthening ofinnovation in agricultural production systems will requirea new commitment to research, education, infrastructureand extension services (OECDFAO, 2012). Capitalising

on the improved use of plant genetic resources is seen asa critical part of the necessary response to the challengesfor food and farming. No new technology should beexcluded a priori on ideological grounds (Pretty, 2008;Government Office for Science, 2011).

Historically, EU researchers have played a major rolein advancing the multi-disciplinary science that isessential for agricultural innovation, but they need tobe encouraged to continue doing so. The EuropeanCommission has already recognised that efforts toincrease agricultural research can be an important partof ensuring food security (European Commission, 2008).

However, the increased requirement for innovationhas yet to be aligned with the reform of CAP or withbiodiversity and rural development activities that canalso do more to support genetic diversity in agriculture(European Commission, 2011a). Even though its mainfocus is on industrial biotechnology, the EuropeanCommissions adoption of the Bioeconomy Strategyfor Europe (European Commission, 2012a) is welcomein encouraging further investment in research andinnovation as well as advocating reinforcement of acoherent policy framework and market conditions indelivering food security. However, as the European

Commission Staff Working document accompanyingthe Strategy (European Commission, 2012b)observes, there are justified concerns about the long-term competitiveness of European industry for thebioeconomy, increasingly losing out to other players, thus it has already lost leadership in plant biotechnology.This assessment is realistic, if disappointing: at the onsetof the biotechnology era more than three decadesago, Europe was competitive with the USA in plantgenetic research. It is vital that sustainable agriculturalproduction and food security harnesses the potential ofbiotechnology in all its facets. There are still considerablestrengths in the underpinning sciences in many Member

1 Introduction


12/78


States, although erosion in others, and the EU can reviveits efforts to become globally competitive again in plantscience and its application in biotechnology. The rapidpace of advance in sequencing, genomics and otheromics technologies is generating information that isproviding new opportunities and technologies to developimproved crops displaying novel combinations of traits.Moreover, high-quality science is important, not only

to drive innovation, but also to inform rational policydecisions.

1.3 Adopting new technologies

EASAC has a longstanding interest in issues relating toagriculture and the environment. In previous work wedescribed the opportunities and challenges presentedby genomic research to facilitate more efficient cropbreeding as an important component of future foodproduction (EASAC, 2004). We also provided a detailedanalysis of the steps necessary to identify, conserve,

characterise and use plant genetic resources in improvedbreeding strategies as well as to understand fundamentalaspects of plant biology, including genome organisationand plant speciation (EASAC, 2011). Conventionalcrop breeding has relied historically on lengthy andrelatively imprecise techniques but application of modernbiosciences, including biotechnology, have the potentialto transform agriculture. The modern scientific basis ofall crop improvement is the identification of genes thatdetermine a specific trait or crop phenotype. Geneticimprovements to crops can be achieved by advancedconventional breeding, for example using marker-assisted selection of desired traits, discussed in detail in

our previous work (EASAC, 2004, 2011), by chemical- orradiation-induced mutation breeding (Podevin et al.,2012) and, more recently, by genetic modification. It is tothis latter approach that we now turn our attention in thepresent report (see Appendix 1 for details of the expertWorking Group). Approaches based on applicationsof biotechnology have already improved agriculturalproductivity worldwide and have very much more tocontribute to resilient global food production (Godfrayet al., 2010).

Following more than 25 years of experience worldwide,

there is an accumulating evidence base on the impactfor the first generation of genetically modified (GM)crops, endowed with traits for herbicide tolerance orinsect resistance, or both. For the future, a wide range ofopportunities for generating better crops, for improvingagricultural productivity and efficiency, environmentalquality and human health, are in prospect and theseopportunities will be discussed subsequently in thisreport.

The current situation is summarised in Box 1 (anddiscussed in further detail in Chapter 2). It is noteworthythat few of the GM crops developed hitherto have

provided significant potential economic benefit to EUagriculture. This may be one contributory factor to whyit has been possible for the EU substantially to reject theadoption of GM crops, an issue that is discussed at lengthin Chapter 4. The lack of enthusiasm within the EU forthe adoption of a GM approach to crop improvementhas serious consequences for increasing dependencyon food and feed imports, and for the science base,

industry competitiveness and the bioeconomy morebroadly, as will be discussed subsequently. It shouldalso be appreciated that the potential importance andvalue of GM technology is influenced by the impactof other policy decisions in agriculture. For example,the recently introduced regulations on the registration

Box 1 The current status of GM cropsworldwide

(1) In 2012, 17.3 million farmers planted GM crops.The area so cultivated has increased 100-fold

since 1996: from 1.7 million to 170 millionhectares in 2012.

(2) Global GM adoption rates are now greater than80% for both soybean and cotton.

(3) Twenty-eight countries planted GM crops in2012: 20 were developing countries. The topten countries each grew more than one millionhectares. In 2012, for the first time, the area ofGM crops in the developing countries (52% ofworldwide total) exceeded that in developedcountries.

(4) It was estimated that in 2011, economicbenefits to developing countries were US$10.1billion compared with US$9.6 billion fordeveloped countries. In addition, the socio-economic and environmental impacts of GMcrops in contributing to food and feed security,farmers income, conservation of biodiversity,reduction of agricultures environmentalfootprint and mitigation of climate change areincreasingly well established (ISAAA, 2013).

(5) Only two GM crops are approved for commercialcultivation in the EU: Bacillus thuringiensis

(Bt)-insect-resistant maize and modified starchcomposition potato for industrial use. The totalarea of GM maize grown in the EU in 2012was129,000 hectares; Spain contributed morethan 90% to this total.

(6) The EU imports about 20 million metric tonneseach year of feed derived from GM crops, mostlysoybean, equivalent to about 7 million hectaresof agricultural area. This represents more than70% of EU animal protein feed requirements.

Sources: Brookes and Barfoot, 2012; James,

2012; Marshall, 2012; ISAAA, 2013.


13/78


of pesticides will result in a smaller number of activechemical ingredients. This will lead to greater difficultyin the delivery of effective, robust, pest and diseasecontrol for farmers who are reliant on chemical-basedprogrammes to return economic yields. The EU hasbeen at the forefront of the basic research on plantdefence mechanisms that could support development ofalternative genetic-based approaches to crop protection.

1.4 Assessing impact of new technologies

Much effort has been devoted to analysing theproductivity and environmental and socio-economicimpacts of the first generation of GM crops. This analysishas included assessment of yield, ease and predictabilityof crop management, applied herbicide use and resultantsoil conditions, use of pesticides, crop mycotoxincontamination, farmer income and farmer health (Qaim,2009; National Research Council, 2010; Brookes andBarfoot, 2012; James, 2012; Mannion and Morse, 2012;

ISAAA, 2013). The peer-reviewed results from some ofthe socio-economic and environmental assessments willbe discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters ofthe present report. In aggregate, the conclusion from thescientific literature is that there is no validated evidenceto associate the first generation of GM crops, that havebeen cultivated for more than 15 years worldwide (andcommercialisation was dependent on more than 20 yearsof prior art in plant sciences), with higher risks to theenvironment or for food and feed safety compared withconventional varieties of the same crop (DG Research,2010a; Fagerstrom et al., 2012).

Statements about the adverse impacts of GM cropshave too often been based on contested science,(exemplified by the recent controversy associated withthe experimental assessment of GM maize NK603(Academies nationales, 2012).1Some controversieshave also confounded trait-specific effects and GMcrop-related issues. Deploying herbicide-resistantvarieties, for example, may have indirect beneficial ordetrimental environmental effects irrespective of whethersuch varieties have been produced by GM technologyor not (see Box 2 for further discussion). Any new toolor technology can cause unintended effects if used

unwisely by adopting poor agronomic practice and it isvital to share lessons learned from the implementation

1 This particular controversy relates to research published on GM maize NK603 where the study authors (Seralini et al., 2012)claimed a strong tumorigenic and toxic effect in rats. However, analysis of this research by the French academies, by EFSA (2012a)and the European Society of Toxicological Pathology (2013) raised many concerns about the initial publication in terms of its unclearobjectives, inadequate disclosure of detail on study design, conduct and analysis, and small group sizes used. EFSA concludedthat the study was of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessment. Criticisms of the original research publication, itsmethodology and reporting procedures have also been made by several other advisory bodies, for example the Federal Institute forRisk Assessment in Germany (2012) and the Italian Federation of Life Sciences (Federazione Italiana Scienze della Vita, 2013), andhave been discussed in the scientific literature (see, for example, Butler, 2012). A comprehensive review of the literature on animalresearch, including long-term and multigenerational studies (Snell et al., 2012) had previously concluded that no such adverseeffects were demonstrable. Recently, EFSA has made public its data and documents relating to the initial authorisation of GM maize

NK 203 (Butler, 2013).

of innovation. For the future, it is important not togeneralise about the safety of conferred traits based onthe technology used. Each new product must be assessedaccording to consistent risk assessment principles thatexamine the trait rather than the means by which thetrait was conferred (see Chapter 4). It is also essential toensure that benefitrisk is evaluated rather than focusingexclusively on risk (Box 2 and Chapter 4). In addition, the

risk of not adopting any particular innovation should beassessed.

It is equally important to appreciate that there are otherestablished techniques now emerging from advancesin biotechnology for use in programmes of cropimprovement. Collectively, all of the methodologiescovered in the present report may be regarded as cropgenetic improvement technologies. The mix of new toolscoming within range is expanding rapidly and significantimpact can be anticipated (Box 3).

For several of these New Breeding Techniques, thecommercialised crop will be free of genes foreign to thespecies, which raises issues for detection and regulationas it will not be possible to discern the methodology bywhich the genetic improvements were achieved. Thechallenges for EU regulation of these New BreedingTechniques will be discussed later in Chapter 4.

1.5 Previous work by national academies ofscience in the EU

Prospects for the use of molecular biosciences in general,genetic modification in particular, and their contribution

to agricultural innovation have been discussed previouslyby many of the constituent academies of EASAC. Theirpublications have documented where there is excellentrelevant science to be nurtured and used. The academieshave also highlighted where there are problems caused bythe failure to take account of the accumulating scientificevidence in modernising and streamlining regulatoryapproaches to benefitrisk assessment. Concerns haverepeatedly been raised that EU regulatory policy is notcoherently supporting a strategy for the bioeconomy;some of the recent EASAC-academy publications arelisted in Appendix 2.

Although no single technology can be regarded as apanacea (EGE, 2008; Bennett and Jennings, 2013), this


14/78


1.6 Objectives and scope of the present report

The present project builds on previous work by EASACand on the mutual interests within member academies.We analyse the situation in countries outside the EU andthe impact of EU policy on other countries as well as onthe EU Member States and elsewhere in Europe andwe identify various disconnects and inconsistenciesin current EU policy. Our goal is to continue to focus

constructive debate, founded on the evidence, across the

Box 2 (Continued)

of current agriculture. The interpretation ofstudy results is often challenged by knowledgegaps about the natural variation occurring in anybiological system and by a lack of comparison withconventional agricultural practices that causeacceptable environmental effects. To define whatconstitutes a harmful effect first requires thecharacterisation of the environmental protectiongoals: those valued environmental resources thatshould not be harmed by GM crop cultivationor any other agricultural practice (Sanvido et al.,2012). It then has to be decided which changesto these protection goals should be regarded asrelevant and, thus, represent unacceptable harm(Sanvido et al., 2012). Unless this is done, data thatreport any change in any measurement are open tointerpretation.

(3) GM crops need to be incorporated insustainable pest management systems

Because technology does not operate in avoid, it is essential that suitable agronomicpractices are in place to maximise the benefitthat can be derived from agricultural innovationand to minimise potential adverse effects ofnovel technologies. Thus, novel agriculturaltechnologies such as improved GM cropvarieties do not negate the necessity for goodagricultural practices but should be incorporated

in integrated pest management andIntegrated Weed Management programmes.When used incorrectly GM crops, like otheragricultural technologies, can result in adverseenvironmental and agricultural impacts such asthe development of resistant pests and weeds.

It is desirable for the emphasis of the debateto be shifted, from discussions of whetherGM crops are good or bad, to exploration ofthe scientific and agricultural policies requiredto ensure that the potential value of GMtechnology from the EU perspective can be

assessed within a concerted and integratedapproach to food and biomass production.

Box 2 Conceptual problems in the debate onimpacts of GM technology

The environmental and socio-economic impactsof growing a crop whether bred by geneticmodification or not are largely the result ofagronomic practices and market issues. Theinteraction of these factors is often complex. TheGM debate has suffered from several conceptualproblems, illustrated here by discussion of the effectson the environment of the first generation of GMcrops.

(1) Confusion of GM crop effects with effectscaused by agricultural practicesper se

Agricultural systems have profound impactson all environmental resources, includingbiodiversity (Tilman et al., 2002). The use of GMcrops causes changes in agricultural practice

(such as a shift in the particular herbicidesthat are used on herbicide-tolerant crops andthe replacement of insecticide applications byBt crops) but the aims remain the same: thesuccessful control of pests and weeds to ensurehigh crop yields. A recent review discussingevidence for the erosion of glyphosate efficacyemphasises the attribution in terms of poorcrop management procedures, not GM-specifictechnology (Helander et al., 2012).The GMcrop enabled the over-use of the herbicide andimposed strong selection on weed populations.

Because of the ideological controversy, studieson specific impacts of GM crops are ofteninterpreted as a validation or rejection of thetechnology more generally. There is a conceptualflaw in this reasoning. The emergence ofglyphosate-resistant weeds was no consequenceof GM technologyper sebut the inappropriatereliance on a single herbicide for weed controlthat the GM crop facilitated.

(2) Lack of definition of harm

The debate on safety has been complicated by

the lack of a clear definition on how to assign avalue to the effects of GM crops in the context

previous academy work collectively makes a strong casethat genetic improvement of crops through breedingand genetic modification should be part of an inclusiveapproach, which also embraces improved understandingof the benefits of ecological and agronomicmanagement, manipulation and redesign (Pretty, 2008).Because of the complexities in the relationship betweenscience and society, innovation in agriculture demandsimproved scientific understanding and good governance

(Royal Society, 2009).


15/78


EU policy-making institutions to combine optimally theirdual roles and responsibilities for proportionate regulationand enabling innovation in support of the bioeconomy.

We take a multi-dimensional approach to evaluating theevidence:

(1) Comparing what is happening in other economies

worldwide who have taken a different path bytheir decision to adopt GM crops more actively. Ouranalysis examines different facets from the reportedsocio-economic and environmental impacts andthe implications for science and innovation in thecomparator countries (Chapter 2 and Appendix 3).The different strategic decisions on agriculture inother countries may, in turn, have consequencesfor EU policy, not just in terms of the burgeoningglobal competition but also by constraining EU policychoices. For example, the EU desire to import non-GMcrop food/feed may be progressively limited by thedeclining availability of non-GM crops in the major

exporting nations in the Americas and Asia.

(2) Ascertaining the implications of EU practices andperspectives on the various applications of cropgenetic improvement technologies in countries inAfrica. In particular, in partnership with our academycolleagues in the Network of African ScienceAcademies (NASAC), we seek to evaluate howprevious EU policy debates and decisions pertainingto GM crops affect policy-makers and other opinion-leaders in African countries (Chapter 3 and Appendix5). NASAC has already been active in supportingdiscussion of the issues for agriculture, environmentalchange and biotechnology2. NASACEASACcompilation of the historical evidence together withanalysis of contemporary views and future trajectoriesfor agricultural innovation and the science base inAfrican countries may, in turn, help to delineate a newevidence stream to inform future EU policy decisions.

(3) Bringing the international evidence together withanalysis of the present situation in the EU, wediscuss whether the EU regulatory environmentgoverning crop genetic improvement technologiescould be enhanced by re-affirming the principles of

evidence-based policy (Chapters 4 and 5). A newapproach in this regard regulating traits and theproduct rather than the technology is likely tohave far-reaching consequences, for food security,sustainable agriculture, environmental quality,scientific endeavour, European competitiveness andEUglobal relationships. Our primary focus is on thescience and technology rather than legal matters;we aim to demonstrate how the available scientificevidence can be better used to inform policy options.

wider scientific and policy communities, as well as withthe public at large. The primary purpose is to explore theimplications for EU policy-makers of alternative strategicchoices in using the tools available the crop geneticimprovement technologies for delivering sustainableagriculture. In this context, economic sustainabilityand environmental sustainability are both crucial. Ifstrategic coherence is to be achieved, it is vital for the

Box 3 Techniques that breeders use to createnew plant varieties: crop geneticimprovement technologies,encompassing GM and New BreedingTechniques

Transgenesis (GM): use of genetic transformationto transfer a gene (DNA coding region) from oneorganism to a different organism.

Cisgenesis: use of genetic transformation totransfer a gene to a plant of the same or closelyrelated (inter-fertile) species.

Intragenesis: use of genetic transformation toinsert a reorganised, full or partial coding regionof a gene derived from the same species (usuallycombined with a promoter or terminator fromanother gene of the same species).

Targeted mutagenesis: specific mutation mediated

by, for example, zinc-finger nuclease (may bestable, ZFN3, or only transient, ZFN1 and 2,integration of DNA according to technique)or TALEN (Transcription Activator-Like EffectorNuclease) technology.

Other transient introduction of recombinant DNA:for example, oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesisand agro-infiltration. The end products can besimilar to, and indistinguishable from, plantsderived through conventional plant breeding.

Other New Breeding Techniques: these include

RNA-induced DNA methylation (gene silencing)and reverse breeding, where intermediate productsare genetically modified but end products areindistinguishable from plants obtained throughconventional breeding. Grafting a non-geneticallymodified scion onto a genetically modifiedrootstock results in a chimeric plant where only thelower part carries the genetic transformation.

See the following references for further detail oftechniques: Tait and Barker, 2011; Grushkin, 2012;Lusser et al., 2012a, b; Mba et al., 2012; Podevinet al., 2012; Waltz, 2012.

2 For example in a conference in 2010 organised jointly with the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences on Impact ofadaptation to climate change in relation to food security in Africa. The proceedings of the conference are available athttp://www.

nasaconline.org/network-resources/cat_view/7-network-documents?start=5.
http://www.nasaconline.org/network-resources/cat_view/7-network-documents?start=5http://www.nasaconline.org/network-resources/cat_view/7-network-documents?start=5http://www.nasaconline.org/network-resources/cat_view/7-network-documents?start=5http://www.nasaconline.org/network-resources/cat_view/7-network-documents?start=5


16/78


The EU agricultural biotechnology debate is complexand polarised (Butschi et al., 2009; Tait and Barker,2011; van Montagu, 2011), with multiple implicationsfor other policy associated with the environment,health, international development, research, innovationand enterprise. It is not our intention to duplicate thedetailed analysis that has already been well reported byothers, but we will cite it when appropriate. We think

our report is timely. Although it is true that the value ofagricultural innovation has been repeatedly discussedover the past three decades, and our messages mayseem familiar in some respects, we judge that it isvitally important to continue to draw attention to the

potential of the biosciences for crop improvement.This is particularly so as we begin to understand betterthe consequences of EU policy decisions in the globalcontext, and now that food security is becoming a muchhigher political priority for EU citizens. There is room foroptimism that the global challenges facing food andfarming can be addressed and overcome. This is not leastbecause the natural sciences continue to provide new

knowledge to stimulate innovation and inform policyoptions (Bennett and Jennings, 2013) and because theEuropean Commission is reaffirming its commitment tocatalyse discussion and action through initiatives such asthe European Innovation Partnership in Agriculture.


17/78


term. The socio-economic and environmental impactand regulatory framework related to the adoption of GMcrops in several comparator countries who have taken adifferent path by their decision to adopt GM crops moreactively will be analysed. In this chapter we highlight

specific aspects in the different countries, selected toillustrate particular key issues for impact, innovation andregulation. Additional background information on thecomparator countries, with respect to status of adoptionof GM crops, regulatory systems, socio-economic impactsand trends in agricultural research is provided in Appendix3, whereas Appendix 4 briefly describes methodologicalconsiderations in assessing the impact of GM crops.An analysis of selected African countries is provided inChapter 3 and Appendix 5.

The comparator countries that have been chosen for

a more in-depth analysis in the present chapter areArgentina, Brazil, India, Australia and Canada. Thereasons for this choice are as follows.

1. These counties were early adopters of GMtechnology and each now grows GM crops on a largescale (more than one million hectares each).

2. These economies account for a major portion ofglobal grains and oilseed production, and playa significant role in the global trade of thesecommodities.

3. The emerging economies of Argentina, Brazil andIndia have also established, to varying degrees,important research programmes for the developmentof GM crops suited to local agronomic conditions andmarket needs. These are funded by both the publicand the private sectors and hence these countriesare set to become increasingly important technologyproviders in the short- to mid-term. In 2011 Brazilapproved production of a GM bean variety, the firstauthorised GM crop developed exclusively withpublic funding. India has also developed a GMcrop (GM aubergine) which addresses important

national agricultural constraints (although it hasyet to approve it due to political and civil societyopposition). In addition, these countries havedeveloped the institutional requirements neededrapidly to adapt foreign GM technology to suit localagronomic conditions and needs.

4. Australia will also be considered in this review,because the policies pertaining to food production,science and innovation in agriculture of this countryare very mindful of strategic decisions taken bydeveloping countries with regards to the uptake of

GM crops. In addition, the Australian experience with

2.1 Introduction

GM crops were planted commercially for the first time in1996, on a surface area of 1.7 million hectares. By 2012,the total area cultivated with GM crops had risen to over

170 million hectares and, significantly, over half of thisproduction is now accounted for by developing countries(James, 2012; and see Chapter 1).

Different strategic decisions taken by other countriesare expected to have consequences for EU policy, notjust in terms of burgeoning global competition, butalso by constraining EU policy choices. The objectiveof this chapter is briefly to describe emerging globaltrends in terms of policies regarding food production,trade and investment in agricultural R&D over thepast decade or so, and to highlight some of the likely

implications of these trends for the EU in the medium

2 International comparison of policy choices and GM experience

Summary of emerging points from Chapter 2

Many countries in the Americas and Asiaare actively adopting GM crops. Agricultural

innovation is becoming an important part of theeconomy in many countries outside the EU. In thischapter, case studies are provided from differentcountries to exemplify particular points relatingto impact, research and development (R&D) andregulation.

There is now a significant volume of informationfrom environmental and socio-economic indicatorsto characterise the impact of the first generation ofGM crops, revealing a range of benefits. Therefore,it is critically important to ensure that the adoptionof GM crops is given due consideration, based on

the scientific evidence, within well-characterisedgood agricultural practice, and alongside attentionto other multiple societal challenges associatedwith marginalisation and inequity. Accordingto the aggregate evidence, GM has no greateradverse impact than any other technology used inplant breeding.

Considerable experience is being gained indeveloping workable GM crop regulatoryframeworks that also act to encourage innovationand support significant growth in research.

There is an enhanced role possible for manyacademies of science worldwide in using theavailable scientific evidence to advise on theoptions for policy-makers. There would also begreat value in ensuring better global coordinationof such advice.


18/78


terms of agricultural production, international trade andinvestment in agricultural research and development.

2.2.1 Agricultural production

GM is a plant breeding technology that, in effect,accelerates the breeding process by overcoming someof the limitations of conventional breeding techniques.Policies that restrict the use of this technology in theEU will probably affect food production by effectivelylimiting the technology options available to overcome thechallenge of increasing agricultural productivity. Thesepolicies may impact the level of competitiveness of theEU as an exporter of food, biomass and non-food plantproducts, and increase dependency on imports to meetdemand. These aspects have been reviewed extensivelybefore and will not be considered further in this review(von Witze and Noleppa, 2010; Chidambaram, 2011;EPSO, 2011; Dixelius et al., 2012; see also Chapter 4).

2.2.2 International trade

Alternative agricultural and technology policies adoptedin major commodity export countries outside the EU,and the stance of the EU on imports of GM crops,also have an impact on international trade. The USA,Australia, Canada and the four emerging economiesof Argentina, Brazil, China and India account for amajor portion of global grains and oilseed productionand play a significant role in the global trade of thesecommodities. These countries have also all adopted GMcrops, and in 2012 they collectively planted over 150million hectares of GM crops (over 90% of the globaltotal; James, 2012).

The EU, on the other hand, is a key importer of soybeans,maize, wheat and rice (GM rice is a product that is inthe pipeline, with GM wheat further into the future).Labelling and segregation requirements add to the costsof imports and hence increase food prices. In addition, theEUs demand to source non-GM food or feed imports maybe progressively limited by declining availability and/orincreased costs of conventional crops in major commodityexporting nations.

The number of commercialised GM events is predictedto rise from approximately 40 released so far, to over 120by 2015, with a diversification in both crop species andtraits engineered (Stein and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2010; andsee Chapter 4). This will involve both a diversification ofcrop species and the selected traits (Stein and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2010). Trade-related problems are thereforelikely to be exacerbated in the future. The implicationsfor international trade of diverging and asynchronous

Bt cotton provides a good example of the value ofincorporating insect-resistant GM crops in integratedpest management systems for more effective andsustainable control of pests.

5. Canada has been selected on the basis of itsregulatory system for Plants with New Traits, whichinclude the products of genetic modification. This

system focuses on regulating the product rather thanthe breeding process by which such product wasdeveloped and it is this aspect that we discuss, ratherthan some of the other impacts for Canada.

The USA, the leading technology developer and anearly adopter of GM crops, will not be specificallyconsidered in this chapter although it should beemphasised that there have been historically divergentapproaches between the EU and USA about theintroduction and marketing of GM foods and seeds(Lynch and Vogel, 2001). Many other studies have

focused on the USA (Fernandez-Cornejo and Caswell,2006; Bonny, 2008; Fuglie et al., 2011; ODonoghueet al., 2011; Owen et al., 2011; McHughen and Smyth,2012; United States Department of Agriculture,2012). In the comprehensive assessment by the USnational academies (National Research Council,2010) of how GM crops are affecting US farmers3,substantial economic and environmental benefits(lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduceduse of pesticides, better yields) were found, comparedwith conventional crops, if GM approaches wereproperly integrated with other proven agronomicpractices for weed and insect management. It is also

worth noting that the USA is continuing to considerhow best to support its science and innovation inagricultural biotechnology. For example, in its launch ofthe National Bioeconomy Blueprint (The White House,2012), the USA is reinforcing five strategic objectives:to strengthen R&D, advance from laboratory to market,reduce regulatory burden, develop the workforceand foster partnerships4. The US Presidents Councilof Advisers on Science and Technology has recentlysubmitted its report to the President on AgriculturalPreparedness and the Agricultural Research Enterprise.In addition to recommending continuing research

investment, the Council of Advisers drew attention tothe need for an internal review of federal regulatorypolicy to promote clarity5.

2.2 Emerging trends

The different strategic decisions on agriculture in othercountries are likely to have consequences for EU policy, in

3 Introduced in 1996 in the USA, in 2009 GM crops accounted for 8090% of soybean, maize and cotton grown.4 For example, one key partnership exemplified in the Blueprint for the USAUK is to design and engineer agricultural systems tomaintain or increase crop yields with minimal input of nitrogen fertilisers.5 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast .
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcasthttp://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast


19/78


et al., 2012; Pray, 2012). In 2006, 16% of Chinastotal spending on agricultural R&D came from privateenterprises, up from less than 3% in 1995 (ASTI, 2012).Similarly, private investment in agricultural R&D hasincreased fivefold in India since the mid-1990s (ASTI,2012). Private-sector firms have become major players indeveloping new innovations for agriculture worldwide(Pray, 2012).

Some of the factors driving companies to invest inagricultural research include the emergence of scientificadvances, the strengthening of intellectual propertyrights, the global expansion of markets for agriculturalinputs (including seeds), and changing governmentregulations. Average annual growth in sales of crop seedand biotechnology traits between 1994 and 2009 wasestimated at 6.9%, and in 2006 the market sales in thesector were worth US$20 billion (Fuglie et al., 2011).The rapid growth of sales of GM products in developingcountries has attracted private sector investment in

research to the countries where farmers are using thetechnology. Private-sector R&D expenditures in inputindustries increased by more than 40% in (inflation-adjusted) US dollars over the period 19942010 (Fuglieet al., 2011). The most R&D-intensive sector is cropbiotechnology. In 2009, research intensity was over 10%of the value of annual seed sales (Fuglie et al., 2011).

Some examples of products developed to address theneeds of emerging economies include GM white maize inSouth Africa and hundreds of Bt cotton hybrids developedby the private sector to suit local agricultural conditionsin India (da Silveira and Borges, 2005; Pray, 2012; see

country sections below and Chapter 3). Investmentin agricultural research to develop GM products fordeveloping countries as publicprivate partnerships is alsosignificant8.

In the EU this trend is reversed. The misuse of theprecautionary principle has led to restrictive legislationand both a political and market mistrust of geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs). This has had a profoundchilling effect on both public and private investment forEuropean agricultural research (see Chapter 4). This trendis also reflected in the steady decrease in the number

of field trials of GM crops in Europe: the number ofapplications submitted in 2012 were 44 (30 in Spain),down from 51 in 2011, 83 in 2010, and 113 in 20099.

approval patterns for GM crops in exporting andimporting countries have been reviewed in the scientificliterature and will not be considered further in this chapter(see Stein and Rodrguez-Cerezo, 2009, 2010).

The predicted future trends in global population arealso likely to shift the balance in international traderelations. Most of the population growth is expected

to occur in Sub-Saharan African countries and in Asia6and as a result food demand will increase considerably.Although this represents a huge humanitarian challenge,it also signifies a very important market opportunityfor commodity exporting countries (see the section onAustralia in Appendix 3). One implication of the rise inAsian food demand may be that the EU will have to faceincreasing competition with other countries in agriculturalcommodity markets.

2.2.3 Global trends in agricultural research anddevelopment

The past couple of decades have witnessed a shift inthe global distribution of investment in science andinnovation, particularly pertaining to agricultural research.Although traditionally the USA, Europe and Japan haveled in terms of investment in R&D, their dominanceis increasingly challenged by emerging economies(UNESCO, 2010; ASTI, 2012). A growing number ofpublic and private research hubs are being establishedin developing countries, which are emerging as keytechnology providers (Ruane, 2013).

Between 2000 and 2008 public investment in research

and development (in all areas of science and technology)in China dramatically increased from about 90 billion yuan(US$10.8 billion) to over 460 billion yuan (US$66.5 billion)at an average annual growth rate of 23% (UNESCO,2010). In the same period, public spending in agriculturalresearch doubled7. In India, one of the fastest-growingeconomies in the world, strong government commitmenthas also resulted in a near doubling of public investmentin agricultural R&D since the mid-1990s. After China andIndia, Brazil ranks third in terms of agricultural investmentin developing countries (ASTI, 2012).

This trend is even clearer when the contribution of theprivate sector to science and technology is considered(UNESCO, 2010; Brookes and Barfoot, 2012; Dixelius

6 During 20112100, six countries are expected to account for half of the worlds projected population increase: India, Nigeria,the USA, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda, listed according to the size of theircontribution to global population growth. Source: World Population Prospects The 2010 Revision, prepared by the PopulationDivision of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat.http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2010_Highlights.pdf.7 China has the worlds largest and most decentralised public agricultural research and development system. It employs over40,000 researchers in more than 1,000 research agencies at the national, provincial and prefectural levels (Chen et al., 2012).8 For a list of PPP for R&D projects of GM crops see http://www.syngentafoundation.org/index.cfm?pageID=745&country=&sortitem=projectType_ID_FK&projectType_ID_FK=69 http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_browse.aspx .
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2010_Highlights.pdfhttp://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2010_Highlights.pdfhttp://www.syngentafoundation.org/index.cfm?pageID=745&country=&sortitem=projectType_ID_FK&projectType_ID_FK=6http://www.syngentafoundation.org/index.cfm?pageID=745&country=&sortitem=projectType_ID_FK&projectType_ID_FK=6http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_browse.aspxhttp://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_browse.aspxhttp://www.syngentafoundation.org/index.cfm?pageID=745&country=&sortitem=projectType_ID_FK&projectType_ID_FK=6http://www.syngentafoundation.org/index.cfm?pageID=745&country=&sortitem=projectType_ID_FK&projectType_ID_FK=6http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2010_Highlights.pdfhttp://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2010_Highlights.pdf


20/78


There is a consensus that herbicide-tolerant GMtechnology does not have a significant impact on yield,because differences reported are largely accounted for bydifferences in the specific genetic background into whichthe GM trait was introduced, and by differences in agro-climatic conditions (da Silveira and Borges 2005; Smale etal., 2006; Bindraban et al., 2009).

The direct environmental impact of growing GMsoybeans relates mostly to changes in weed controlpractices. Compared with many other herbicides, theeco-toxicity of glyphosate is lower with shorter residualeffects in soil and water. A further benefit of thetechnology is the ability to adopt no-till farming practiceswhich prevent soil erosion, loss of water and nutrients,and reduced fuel consumption (Qaim and Traxler, 2005;Kleter et al., 2007, Bindraban et al., 2009; Brookes andBarfoot, 2012; Trigo, 2011)11.

Negative environmental impacts have also beenreported. These include an increase in herbicideuse (because application rates are generally highercompared with conventional counterparts) forherbicide-tolerant soybean and in no-till systemsindependently of whether the crop grown is GM orconventional (Bindraban et al., 2009; Trigo, 2011,Brookes and Barfoot, 2012). The environmental impactof herbicide-tolerant soybean has been estimated to behigher than that of conventional soybean in one study(Bindraban et al., 2009) and lower in separate studies(Brookes and Barfoot, 2006, 2012). The difference in theconclusions can be accounted for by different sources

of data and the fact that the former study focused onthe main soybean cropping areas of Argentina where ahigher level of inputs tend to be used rather than on thecountry as a whole (Bindraban, 2009).

Extensive glyphosate use has also resulted in theemergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, a factor thatthreatens to erode the benefits of herbicide-tolerant GMtechnology (Cerdeira et al., 2006, 2011; Christoffoletiet al., 2008; Powles, 2008; Bindraban et al., 2009).Farmers tend to increase glyphosate applications tocontrol herbicide-resistant weeds, which exacerbates the

problem. A further negative consequence of the highlevel of production of soybean in Argentina (albeit notdirectly linked to GM technology because it would occurwith any crop) is the loss of phosphate from the soil,estimated to amount to 14 million tons between 1996and 2010 (Trigo, 2011)12.

By comparison, Argentina alone performed 72 fieldtrials in 201110.

2.3 Reported impacts and the implicationsfor science, innovation and regulation incomparator countries

2.3.1 Reported impact of GM herbicide-tolerant

soybean in Argentina

Cumulative gross benefits of adopting GM cropsfor Argentina have been estimated at over US$72million, with most of the reported benefits accountedfor by soybean production (US$65 million forherbicide-tolerant soybeans, US$5 million for GMmaize and just under US$2 million for insect-resistantand herbicide-tolerant GM cotton; Trigo, 2011).Argentinas capacity to act as an early adopter wasreported to be critical because it allowed the countryto benefit from initial low levels of competition in

international markets and higher commodity prices(Trigo, 2011).

The expansion of GM soybean production wasaccompanied by profound changes in the Argentineaneconomy that favoured the geographical concentrationof agricultural production and development of large-scale operations. Soybean production expandedas a monoculture, or as a wheatsoybean double-cropping system (Bindraban et al., 2005). Bulk exportof soybeans also led to an increase of farm size due tothe financial benefits from economies of scale (Manuel-Navarrete et al., 2009). These factors promoted

input-oriented and process-oriented practices, witha significant increase in the level of mechanisation(Bindraban et al., 2009; Manuel-Navarrete et al., 2009).The adoption of GM soybean fitted these systemswell and therefore contributed to the expanded scaleof production even though this is not essential forbeneficial deployment of the technology (for example,in Brazil, this increase in farm sizes took place beforethe adoption of GM soybean, see Appendix 3). About50% of the soybean crop sown in the 2002/2003season was planted in areas that were not cultivated in1998 (LARTFAUBA, 2004). This raised concerns about

the potential adverse impact on fragile ecosystems inArgentina if there was a gradual expansion of soybeanproduction (Bindraban, 2009; Trigo, 2011). Extensivemonoculture has also raised concerns about thesustainability of this agronomic practice (Bindrabanet al., 2009; Trigo, 2011).

10 http://64.76.123.202/site/agregado_de_valor/biotecnologia/50-EVALUACIONES/___historica/_archivos/liberaciones_ogm_2011.pdf.11 Glyphosate replaced imidazolines for broad-leafed weeds and soil-incorporated triazines for controlling grass weeds (althoughthese are still used to address residual weed problems in GM plantations, whereas glyphosate is also used in conventionalplantations as a pre-emergence herbicide; Kleter et al., 2007).12 GM plants able to metabolise phosphite as a source of phosphorus are currently being developed (Lpez-Arredundo and

Herrera-Estrella, 2012).
http://64.76.123.202/site/agregado_de_valor/biotecnologia/50-EVALUACIONES/___historica/_archivos/liberaciones_ogm_2011.pdfhttp://64.76.123.202/site/agregado_de_valor/biotecnologia/50-EVALUACIONES/___historica/_archivos/liberaciones_ogm_2011.pdfhttp://64.76.123.202/site/agregado_de_valor/biotecnologia/50-EVALUACIONES/___historica/_archivos/liberaciones_ogm_2011.pdfhttp://64.76.123.202/site/agregado_de_valor/biotecnologia/50-EVALUACIONES/___historica/_archivos/liberaciones_ogm_2011.pdf


21/78


(Areal et al., 2013). GM crops performed best indeveloping countries, probably because of the lack ofalternative efficient and affordable pest managementpractices (Brookes and Barfoot, 2009, 2012; Carpenter,2010, 2011; Finger et al., 2011; Areal et al., 2013).

The environmental and human health benefitsfrom adopting Bt cotton have also been extensively

documented. These are mostly a function of thedecreased use of chemical pesticides required duringcotton production (Kouser and Qaim, 2011; Stone, 2011;Krishna and Qaim, 2012).

Nonetheless, despite the nearly universal adoption ofthe Bt cotton in India and the growing body of scientificevidence in support of the technology, the success ofBt cotton in India continues to be a highly controversialtopic (Herring, 2006, 2008a, b; Stone, 2011; Herring andRao, 2012). Much of this controversy revolves aroundethical arguments that form part of a global polemic

on use of GM crops in food production. Concerns citedinclude control by multinationals of the agriculturalsector and fears over human health and the environment.Opposition has largely been driven by a coalition ofnon-governmental organisations (NGOs) connected tointernational advocacy organisations (Herring 2006,2008a, b).

Among other allegations, Bt cotton is linked towidespread agronomic and crop failures and of beingthe main reason for a resurgence of farmers suicides inIndia. Farmers suicides in India are a serious problem thatpre-dates the adoption of Bt cotton. A study exploring

the link between the cultivation of Bt cotton and farmerssuicides established lack of supporting evidence for aresurgence of suicides linked to the adoption of Bt cotton(Grure et al., 2008). The authors note, however, that theperformance of Bt cotton, although positive on average,varied in different locations and seasons. Crop failureswere considered a consequence of unfavourable climaticconditions, and these failures were compounded by lowmarket prices for cotton, inappropriate farming practices,misinformation about the new technology and thewidespread use of early Bt varieties that were not adaptedfor all locations and farming practices (Grure et al., 2008,

2010). Institutional problems, such as weak agriculturalextension services, lack of irrigation in drought-proneareas, the absence or failure of agricultural credit andfinancing systems, and the high prevalence of adulteratedand fake seeds and inputs further exacerbated thesituation. Because there are reports attesting to thebeneficial effects of cultivating Bt cotton and the fact thatthe factors determining farmers suicides have existedbefore the introduction of Bt cotton, the proof linkingthe two remains weak and controversial (Gruere andSun, 2012).

It has been suggested that corrective policies for foodproduction and suitable R&D policies to improve existingtechnologies need to be implemented as well as adoptionof good agricultural practices (i.e. farm zoning, use ofnon-chemical weed control methods, crop rotations andnutrient replacement) (Behrens et al., 2007). The need forstrategies to provide long-term sustainable productivityhas also been suggested (Powles, 2008). The EASAC

view and that of many other expert groups is that thesechallenges are not in any way unique to deploymentof GM crops; they apply to crop production systemsusing conventional varieties and essentially relate to theproblems associated with crop monocultures as well asthe sole reliance on crop protection compounds (such asspecific herbicides) with a single mode of action.

2.3.2 Socio-economic impact of Bt cotton in India

The only GM crop that India has commercialised isBt cotton, first officially approved in 2002 after the

completion of comprehensive safety studies13

. Since 2007(when it overtook the USA), India has been the countrywith the greatest area of cotton cultivation (12 millionhectares). India is also the second greatest producer ofcotton lint in the world (FAOSTATS, http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx). Production of cotton lint in Indiamore than tripled between 2002 and 2010. In 2012 thearea under GM cotton was 10.8 million hectares (James,2012).

Scientific studies assessing the performance of Bt cottonin India report overall a positive effect of the technology.An analysis of a dataset collected between 2002 and

2008 shows that the use of Bt cotton has resulted in a24% increase in cotton yield per acre through reducedpest damage and a 50% gain in cotton profit amongsmallholders (Kathage and Qaim, 2012). The studyconcludes that Bt cotton has delivered sustainablebenefits and contributes to positive economic and socialdevelopment in India (Kathage and Qaim, 2012). Btcotton is reported to have contributed 19% of totalyield growth in nine Indian cotton-producing statesfrom 1975 to 2009 (the use of fertilisers and of hybridseeds being other significant variables; Grure and Sun,2012). In addition, Bt cotton also provides farmers with

indirect economic benefits, such as time and laboursavings resulting from the reduced number of pesticideapplications required. The time saved can be devoted toother income-generating activities (Subramanian andQaim, 2009).

The positive performance of Bt cotton was confirmedby a meta-analysis of the economic and agronomicperformance of GM crops worldwide using a varietyof approaches (Areal et al, 2013). Bt cotton was foundto be the most profitable crop followed by Bt maize

13 http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/bgnote.pdf .
http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspxhttp://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspxhttp://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/bgnote.pdfhttp://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/bgnote.pdfhttp://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspxhttp://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx


22/78


to the Indian Department of Biotechnology, over 70GM crops (70% of which are developed by the publicsector) are at various stages in the regulatory process andpending approval from the Genetic Engineering AppraisalCommittee (GEAC) (Jayaraman, 2012). The mostsignificant casualty of the system is arguably Bt brinjal(aubergine); although the crop received commercialapproval by GEAC in late 2009, it was subsequently

banned by the Indian Government in 2010 in the wake offierce opposition by some NGOs. This situation has not yetbeen resolved (Padmanaban, 2009; Bagla, 2010; Shelton,2010; Bandopadhyay et al., 2012; Jayaraman, 2012;Laursen, 2012; Pingali, 2012; Kudlu and Stone, 2013).

Ongoing scrutiny of the performance of GM cropsrelative to their conventionally bred counterparts andthe endorsement of public debates that incorporate thesocial and cultural dimensions of the deployment of newtechnologies are essential to determine the contributionthat a new technology can make to increasing agricultural

productivity and sustainability. These debates are not,however, a substitute for reforms tackling underlyingproblems with existing agricultural systems, which cannotbe addressed by any specific plant breeding technologyper se. EASAC believes it is vital for the emphasis of thedebate on GM crops to be shifted to a primary focus onthe policies required to ensure that the potential value ofnovel plant breeding technologies is realised.

2.3.3 Bt cotton in Australia: a case history

Australia has approved GM cotton and GM oilseed rapefor cultivation. GM cotton has been grown since 1996

and now makes up around 95% of Australias cottoncrop (Australian Department Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry, 2012).

Bt cotton was deployed in Australia primarily to controlHelicoverpa armigera and H. punctigera, major pests forthe cotton industry. H. armigerahas a high capacity todevelop resistance rapidly to many classes of insecticides.By the mid-1990s, up to 14 applications of insecticideswere required to control this pest in Australia (Forrester etal., 1993; Downes and Mahon, 2012). The first Bt cottonreleased was INGARD (known as Bollgard elsewhere).

INGARD produces the Cry1Ac protein from Bacillusthuringiensis, and although this protein is the most toxicof the insecticidal proteins tested against

Very similar conclusions were reached by a study assessingthe causes of suicides in the 19971998 growing season(4 years before the official adoption of Bt cotton inIndia; Reddy and Rao, 1998). The authors identified asa common feature of the agricultural landscape a sharpincrease in the proportion of small farms: 80% of theholdings were below 5 acres, and half of the farms weresmaller than 2.5 acres14. Factors that contribute to the

fragmentation of the land include population growth,lack of opportunities outside agriculture, a decline incaste occupations and the breakdown of the joint familysystem15(Reddy and Rao, 1998).

Because traditional crops fetch low prices, farmers insmall holdings tended to move to higher value cash crops,such as cotton, although these crops may not have beensuitable for the soil types and environmental conditionsof the region. Small farms typically face more severelimitations of capital resources and credit in the processof adopting new agricultural technologies, such as seeds,

inputs, irrigation and farm machinery16

. The study liststhe same causes as contributing factors in a decline inreturn-cost ratios leading the farming community into adebt trap: lack of fair credit systems, volatility in cottonprices, lack of provision of adequate agricultural advice,unsuitable and unsustainable farming practices, andadulterated seeds and inputs (Reddy and Rao, 1998). Theemergence of very small holdings, declining employmentopportunities in rural areas and the neglect of semi-arid region and dry-land agriculture are interpreted assymptomatic of a deeper crisis of the Indian agriculturalsector that requires significant policy interventions andinvestment by the government for rectification (Reddyand Rao, 1998).

The policy recommendations of the studies reviewedare overwhelmingly in agreement: policies directed atimproving the overall economic development of ruralareas are a requisite for ensuring that the potentialbenefits of GM crops are fully realised (Grure et al.,2008, 2010; Subramanian and Qaim, 2009; Stone, 2011;Herring and Rao, 2012). These include policies aimed atimprovements in infrastructure and access to educationand financial markets.

The Bt cotton controversy has had significant effectson ongoing research programmes, and on thecommercialisation of products from research. According

14 These figures are in agreement with more recent estimates. Most landholdings are small: 82% were classified as small scale in2006; and farms less than two hectares occupied 40% of Indias agricultural land. Close to 60% of Indias workforce is employed inagriculture, according to the 2011 census (Government of India, 2011).15 Under the traditional syst

Documents

Easac Planting the Future Full Report