Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security

Matin Qaim

University of GoettingenDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Rural DevelopmentPlatz der Goettinger Sieben 5, 37073 Goettingen, GermanyPhone: +49-551-39-24806Fax: +49-551-39-24823Email: mqaim@uni-goettingen.de

Abstract:

Ending hunger in all its forms by 2030, as stipulated in the United Nations’ Sustainable

Development Goals, will require different types of approaches, including the development and

use of new agricultural technologies. In this connection, the potential role of genetically modified

(GM) crops is debated controversially. The first GM crops were commercialized in the mid-

1990s. In 2017, around 13% of the global arable land was cultivated with GM crops, mostly

endowed with herbicide-tolerance and insect-resistance traits. This paper provides an overview of

GM crop applications with a particular focus on developing countries. Existing studies show that

the adoption of GM crops has contributed to productivity increases, household income gains, and

poverty reduction in the small farm sector. There is also evidence of environmental and health

benefits through reductions in the use of chemical pesticides, although the effects vary. Several

new GM technologies – such as drought-tolerant, enhanced nitrogen-use-efficient, and

biofortified crops – are currently tested; they could also produce substantial benefits. In the public

biotech debate, such benefits are often underrated, while risks are overrated. Combined with

other technologies, GM crops could contribute to pro-poor sustainable development and food

security. Genome-edited crops could further increase the efficiency of crop breeding, even

without having to transfer genes across species boundaries. Policy challenges are also discussed.

1

Introduction

A genetically modified (GM) crop is a plant used for agricultural purposes into which one or

several genes coding for desirable traits have been inserted through the process of genetic

engineering. These genes may stem not only from the same or other plant species, but also from

organisms totally unrelated to the recipient crop. The basic techniques of plant genetic

engineering were developed in the early-1980s, and the first GM crops became commercially

available in the mid-1990s. Since then, GM crop adoption has increased very rapidly. In 2017,

GM crops were grown on 13% of the global arable land (James 2017).

The crop traits targeted through genetic engineering are not completely different from those

pursued by conventional breeding. However, because genetic engineering allows for the direct

gene transfer across species boundaries, some traits that were previously difficult or impossible to

breed can now be developed with relative ease. Two categories of GM traits can be distinguished.

First, crops with improved agronomic traits, such as better resistance to pests or higher tolerance

to different types of climate stress. Second, crops with improved quality traits, such as higher

nutrient contents of food products.

The potentials of GM crops are manifold. Against the background of a dwindling natural resource

base, productivity increases in global agriculture are important to ensure sufficient availability of

food and other raw materials for a growing population. GM crops can also bring about

environmental benefits. Furthermore, new seed technologies can play an important role for rural

income growth and poverty alleviation in developing countries. Finally, nutritionally enhanced

crops could help improve the health status of consumers (Qaim 2009, Barrows et al. 2014).

In spite of these potentials, the development and use of GM crops has aroused significant

opposition (Gilbert 2013). The major concerns are related to potential environmental and health

2

risks, but there are also fears about adverse social implications. For instance, some believe that

GM technology could undermine traditional knowledge systems in developing countries. Given

the increasing privatization of crop improvement research and the proliferation of intellectual

property rights (IPRs), there are also concerns about the potential monopolization of seed markets

and exploitation of smallholder farmers (Stone 2010).

Concerning environmental and health risks, 30 years of risk research and over 20 years of

practical experience with GM crops have shown that the worries are unsubstantiated. Every new

technology may create certain problems if not used responsibly. But in this respect GM crops are

not different from other agricultural technologies. The available evidence suggests that GM crops

are not more risky than conventionally bred crops (NAS 2016).

Genes that were newly introduced to the crop plants may outcross to other plants of the same

species through pollen flow. But such outcrossing of genes through pollen flow is a normal

phenomenon also in conventional crops. Whether the outcrossing of genes and plant traits may

possibly create environmental problems needs to be assessed case by case, regardless of the

underlying breeding process. Hence, risk assessment should be based on the products of

breeding, not the breeding process. In other words, regulatory procedures that require very

different tests for GM crops than for conventionally bred crops, as observed in most countries,

are not scientifically justified (EASAC 2013).

Concerning the social implications of GM crops, a broader array of aspects needs to be

considered. This paper reviews the available research on the adoption and socioeconomic impacts

of GM crops with a particular focus on developing countries. Institutional constraints and related

policy challenges are also briefly discussed.

3

Worldwide adoption of GM crops

The commercial application of GM crops began in the mid-1990s. Since then, the technology has

spread rapidly around the world, both in industrialized and developing countries (Figure 1). For

the last few years, the area grown with GM crops in developing countries has been larger than the

area in industrialized countries. In 2017, GM crops were planted on 190 million hectares (ha),

which is equivalent to 13% of the total worldwide cropland. These 190 million ha were grown by

18 million farmers in 24 countries (James 2017). The countries where GM crops are currently

commercially cultivated are shown in Figure 2. Most of these countries are located in North and

South America, followed by Asia. In Europe and Africa, very few countries have adopted GM

crops, which is due to limited public acceptance in these regions and unfavorable regulatory

environments.

Figure 1: Development of the worldwide area grown with GM crops (1996-2017) (Source: Author’s presentation based on data from ISAAA 2018)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Mill

ion

ha

TotalIndustrialized countriesDeveloping countries

4

Figure 2: Countries that cultivated GM crops in 2017 (Note: Countries with GM crop applications are shown in red color. Source: Author’s presentation based on data from ISAAA 2018)

The countries with the biggest shares of the total GM crop area in 2017 were the USA (39%),

Brazil (26%), and Argentina (12%), followed by Canada (7%), India (6%), Paraguay (2%),

Pakistan (2%) China (2%), and a number of other countries.

In spite of the widespread international use of GM crops, the portfolio of available crop-trait

combinations is still very limited. While many different traits were developed and tested, most of

them were not yet approved for commercial use because of lengthy regulatory procedures and

cautious policy attitudes. So far, only a few concrete GM technologies have been

commercialized. The dominant technology is herbicide tolerance (HT) in soybeans, which is

mostly used in countries of North and South America. In 2017, HT soybeans accounted for

almost 80% of total worldwide soybean production.

5

Other widely-used GM crops include insect-resistant (IR) maize and cotton. The insect-resistance

trait is based on genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which control

stemborers, rootworms, and cotton bollworms. Especially Bt cotton is grown in many different

parts of the world, including by smallholder farmers. In 2017, India had the largest Bt cotton

area, followed by the USA, Pakistan, China, and various other developing countries.

Impacts of GM crop adoption

Over the last 20 years, a large number of studies have been conducted, analyzing the effects of

GM crop adoption on yield, pesticide use, farm profits, and other outcomes in different parts of

the world. A meta-analysis has evaluated these existing studies, finding that GM crop adoption

benefits farmers in most situations (Klümper and Qaim 2014). On average, GM technology has

increased crop yields by 22% and reduced chemical pesticide use by 37% (Table 1). GM seeds

are usually more expensive than conventional seeds, but the additional seed costs are

compensated through savings in chemical pest control and higher revenues from crop sales.

Average profit gains for adopting farmers are 68%.

Table 1: Mean impacts of GM crop adoption in % (results from a meta-analysis) (Source: Author’s presentation based on data from Klümper and Qaim 2014)

Outcome variable All GM crops Insect-resistant crops (IR) Herbicide-tolerant crops (HT)

Yield 21.6 a 24.9 a 9.3 b

Pesticide quantity -36.9 a -41.7 a 2.4Pesticide cost -39.2 a -43.4 a -25.3 a

Farmer profit 68.2 a 68.8 a 64.3a statistically significant at 1% level. b statistically significant at 5% level.

However, a breakdown of GM crop impacts by modified trait reveals a few notable differences

(Table 1). While significant reductions in pesticide costs are observed for HT and IR crops, only

6

IR crops lead to a consistent reduction in pesticide quantity (pesticides, as defined here, include

insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and all other chemical pest control agents). Such disparities

are expected, because the two technologies are quite different. IR crops protect themselves

against certain insect pests, so that spraying insecticides can be reduced. HT crops are not

protected against pests but against broad-spectrum chemical herbicides (mostly glyphosate),

which can facilitate weed control. While HT crops have reduced herbicide quantity in some

situations, they have contributed to notable increases in the use of broad-spectrum herbicides

elsewhere. The savings in pesticide costs for HT crops in spite of higher quantities can be

explained by the fact that broad-spectrum herbicides are often much cheaper than the selective

herbicides that were used before. Average yield effects are also higher for IR than for HT crops.

The meta-analysis also differentiated between impacts in different countries, finding that farmers

in developing countries benefit more from GM crop adoption than farmers in industrialized

countries. The reasons for significantly higher average yield and farmer profit gains in

developing countries are twofold. First, farmers operating in tropical and subtropical climates

often suffer from more considerable pest damage that can be reduced through GM crop adoption.

Hence, effective yield gains tend to be higher than for farmers operating in temperate zones.

Second, most GM crops are not patented in developing countries, so that GM seed prices are

lower than in industrialized countries, where patent protection is much more common (Klümper

and Qaim 2014).

Beyond the benefits for farmers, GM crops have also contributed to positive environmental and

health effects (Barrows et al. 2014). Reductions in the use chemical pesticides through IR crops

have led to benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and to a reduction in the number of

farmer pesticide poisoning incidences. HT crops have facilitated the adoption of reduced-tillage

7

practices, thus curbing erosion problems and greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, without the

productivity gains from GM crops, around 25 million hectares of additional farmland would have

to be cultivated globally, in order to maintain current agricultural production levels (Qaim 2016).

As is well known, farmland expansion into natural habitats is an important contributing factor to

biodiversity loss and climate change.

However, especially the widespread use of HT crops in North and South America is also

associated with certain environmental problems. Higher profits and easier weed control have

induced many farmers to narrow down their crop rotations, now often growing HT crops as

monocultures. This has contributed to resistance development in weed populations and has also

increased other pest and disease problems, sometimes leading to higher pesticide use (Fernandez-

Cornejo et al. 2014). These environmental problems are not inherent to GM technology; they are

rather the result of the inappropriate use of GM crops. Improved seeds should never be

considered a substitute for good agronomic practice, but should be integrated into sound and

locally-adapted crop rotations and agricultural systems.

GM crops and smallholder farmers

New agricultural technologies that are suitable also for smallholder farmers are known to have

large potentials to reduce poverty and promote broader rural development. Hence, it is important

to understand in how far GM crops can be used successfully by smallholder farmers. Again, it is

important to differentiate by crops and traits. HT soybeans have so far been used primarily by

relatively large farms in North and South America. Soybeans are not much grown by

smallholders. Moreover, weed control in the small farm sector is typically conducted manually,

so that adopting HT seeds would not make much sense. This underlines that not every GM crop-

trait combination will be beneficial in the small farm sector.

8

However, insect-resistant Bt crops are widely grown by smallholder farmers in countries like

India, China, Pakistan, and South Africa. The example of Bt cotton in India is particularly

interesting, because anti-biotech activists repeatedly claimed that GM seeds have ruined

smallholder cotton growers in India. However, these claims were shown to be wrong (Gilbert

2013). Smallholder cotton growers in India have rapidly adopted Bt cotton because the

technology proved to be very beneficial. Within less than 10 years after its first

commercialization, more than 90% of the cotton growers in India had switched to GM varieties.

Higher yields and profits have contributed to significant welfare gains in smallholder households.

Estimates with long-term survey data suggest that the adoption of Bt cotton has raised farm

household living standards by 18% on average (Kathage and Qaim 2012).

Higher household incomes through Bt cotton adoption have also caused improvements in dietary

quality and nutrition. GM technology adoption has reduced food insecurity among Indian cotton

growers by 15-20% (Qaim and Kouser 2013). Beyond the cotton growers themselves, other rural

households benefit from growth in the cotton sector through additional employment. This is

particularly relevant for poor landless families, who often belong to the poorest of the poor in

India. Two-thirds of all rural income gains from Bt cotton adoption in India accrue to poor people

with incomes of less than 2 dollars a day (Qaim 2016).

Similar to these results from India, Bt crop adoption has also contributed to poverty reduction and

other social benefits in the small farm sectors of China, Pakistan, South Africa, and several other

developing countries (Smyth et al. 2014).

9

Possible future GM crop applications

As discussed, the cultivation of GM crops has increased rapidly during the last 20 years.

However, of the 190 million ha under GM crops in 2017, over 95% were grown with only four

different crop species (soybean, maize, cotton, and canola) and two modified traits (herbicide

tolerance and insect resistance). This relatively narrow focus of GM crop applications has

different reasons. One reason is that many traits are more complex to develop than herbicide

tolerance or insect resistance, which are both coded by only one single gene. Most tolerances to

climate stress factors and many relevant quality traits are coded by multiple genes, making the

process of genetic engineering more complex. However, a more important reason for the narrow

crop and trait focus so far is the low public acceptance of GM technology and, coupled with this,

the complex regulatory procedures. Several GM technologies were extensively tested but not yet

approved for commercial use, because of overly precautious regulators, highly politicized policy

processes, and extensive lobbying efforts of anti-biotech activist groups (Paarlberg 2008).

Public attitudes towards GM crops differ regionally, as do related regulatory procedures. For

instance, in North and South America, societal views and regulatory approaches for GM crops

are generally more favorable than in Europe. However, international agreements require that new

GM crop applications are approved in importing countries as well, meaning that the regulatory

hurdles in Europe also hamper biotech developments in other parts of the world (Qaim 2016).

The complex and politicized processes of biosafety and food safety regulation do not only delay

the final approval and commercialization, but also the development of new GM crops, as even

field trials need to be approved case by case. When such approvals are not issued on time, or

when field trials are vandalized, as happened repeatedly in the past, GM crop and trait

developments can be seriously delayed or thwarted altogether. Thus, the public opposition could

10

well contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy: some of the public resistance is based on the

argument that the promises of GM crops have been oversold, because so far only very few

concrete technologies are actually available on the market.

In the following, a few selected new GM crop applications with particular relevance for

developing countries are discussed. These technologies are at advanced stages in the research

pipeline and were already tested successfully in the field. Studies suggest that the potential

benefits of these and other new GM crop applications could be substantial (Qaim 2016).

Drought tolerance. Drought is a serious issue in many developing countries that can have

severe economic, social, and humanitarian consequences. Climate change is an additional

challenge, as it is expected to increase water stress, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and

South Asia. Several public and private sector research organizations are working towards

improving the water efficiency of important staple food crops, such as rice, wheat, and

maize. This involves both conventional breeding and genetic engineering. A first drought-

tolerant GM maize hybrid was recently commercially released in the USA; the same

technology is now further developed for use in Africa and was already field-tested in

Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda. Similar projects to develop drought-tolerant varieties

are also underway in other parts of the world, including in Asia. Drought-tolerant varieties

could significantly increase and stabilize crop yields under arid and semi-arid conditions.

Nutrient use efficiency. Plants require various mineral nutrients for healthy growth and

production. Limitation in any of the required nutrients reduces crop yield and quality and

also makes the plant more susceptible to pests and diseases. In intensive agricultural

production, the use of large quantities of mineral fertilizer is routine practice, but comes at

a significant economic and ecological cost. A major problem is that the nutrient efficiency

11

of crop plants is low. Average nitrogen use efficiency in cereals is below 50 percent,

implying that the plants can only use less than half of the nitrogen fertilizers applied.

Increasing nutrient use efficiency of plants through improved genetics could be a

fundamental step towards more sustainable agricultural production. Ongoing research is

focusing in particular on increasing nitrogen and phosphate use efficiencies in rice, wheat,

maize, and other crops. In high-input systems, such technologies will allow reductions in

fertilizer use without jeopardizing yields. In low-input production systems, where plants

suffer from insufficient nutrient availability, the same technologies could contribute to

significant yield increases. Especially in Africa the use of fertilizer is very low, due to

knowledge, infrastructure, and financial constraints.

Biofortified crops. Micronutrient malnutrition is a widespread problem in many

developing countries, with serious negative health implications. The prevalence is

especially high among the poor, whose diets are usually dominated by cheap staple foods.

Biofortification is a micronutrient intervention that involves breeding staple food crops

for higher mineral and vitamin contents to reduce micronutrient malnutrition among poor

consumers. Biofortification does not always involve genetic engineering. Several

initiatives use conventional breeding to increase micronutrient contents in different crop

species. However, with GM approaches higher levels of micronutrients can usually be

achieved. Moreover, GM techniques can help to introduce nutrients that are not found in

the edible parts of certain crop species or their wild relatives. A case in point is the

Golden Rice project, where GM approaches were used to increase the provitamin A

content in rice. After many years of testing, Golden Rice will likely be commercialized

for the first time in 2018 or 2019 in the Philippines and other countries of Asia. Studies

suggest that Golden Rice – if widely produced and consumed – will bring about large

12

nutrition and health benefits, especially for poor population segments that cannot afford

more expensive sources of vitamin A (Qaim 2016).

Institutional and policy challenges

Most GM crops available so far were commercialized by private companies. The evidence

demonstrates that proprietary GM crops can have positive development effects. Nevertheless, the

small farm sector will hardly be served comprehensively by private multinationals alone. One

concern is related to patents and seed prices. Most of the existing GM crops are not patented in

developing countries, but this may potentially change in the future. Strengthening IPRs in

developing countries can have advantages and disadvantages. Especially in the least-developed

countries, it could entail undesirable social consequences, because higher seed prices would

reduce technology accessibility for smallholders.

Beyond seed prices, the dominance of multinationals also has implications for the type of GM

crops that emerge. The private sector develops technologies primarily for big lucrative markets.

While technically feasible, it is unlikely that multinationals will commercialize GM innovations

for niche markets in developing countries, where market failures are commonplace. Such

research gaps will have to be addressed by the public sector.

But also when suitable GM crops are developed and commercialized, benefits for poor farmers

and consumers will not occur automatically. A conducive institutional environment is important

to promote wide and equitable access. Well-functioning input and output markets will spur the

process of innovation adoption. Unfortunately, in many poor countries such conditions first need

to be established, so that the GM crop impacts observed so far in India, China, South Africa, and

13

other more advanced developing countries cannot simply be extrapolated. Like any agricultural

technology, GM crops are not a substitute but a complement to much needed institutional change

in developing countries.

However, the biggest obstacles for GM crops are the negative public attitudes towards this

technology, especially in Europe but spilling over also to other parts of the world. Public attitudes

largely build on misinformation and narratives spread by anti-biotech activist groups. Even

though most of these narratives were disproved by scientific evidence, false negative stories still

strongly influence the public and policy debate. Negative public attitudes are also responsible for

the complex and protracted regulatory procedures, which increase the cost and uncertainty related

to the development and commercialization of GM crops. This is a challenge for private

companies, but affects public research organizations and humanitarian projects much more.

Multinational companies may still be able to afford the excessive regulatory costs, while smaller

companies and public research organizations are not. Thus, overregulation contributes to industry

concentration, with poor countries, poor farmers, and poor consumers suffering the most.

To advance pro-poor GM crop innovation, better science communication, more integrity in

public and policy debates, and streamlined regulatory approaches are required. Regulatory reform

also needs to account for new breeding techniques, such as genome editing, which also have large

potentials to contribute to sustainable development (Zaidi et al. 2019).

Conclusion

The evidence suggests that the risks of GM crops are overrated in the public debate, while the

benefits are underrated. Impact studies of commercialized GM crops show that there are sizeable

economic and environmental benefits. Insect-resistant crops in particular have positive social

14

effects in the small farm sector and contribute to poverty reduction. Farmers in developing

countries benefit more than farmers in industrialized countries. GM technologies in the research

pipeline include crops that are tolerant to various abiotic stresses and crops that contain higher

amounts of micronutrients. The benefits of such future applications could be much bigger than

the ones already observed. Against the background of a dwindling natural resource base and

growing demand for agricultural products, GM crops could contribute significantly to food

security and sustainable development.

However, GM crops are no panacea. Like any transformative technology, they raise certain

questions that need to be addressed to avoid undesirable side-effects. Some of these questions are

rightly raised by biotech critics, but the conclusion that any potential issue would justify a ban is

certainly inappropriate. Unfortunately, the entrenched fundamental debate about banning or

allowing GM crops has often overshadowed more detailed questions of suitable technology

management. Relevant questions, for which policy responses and institutional adjustments may

be required, include the following. How can we ensure that GM crops are used sustainably as part

of diverse agricultural systems and not as substitutes for proper agronomy? How can market

power by a few multinationals be prevented? How can we facilitate the development of GM

crops and traits that could particularly benefit poor farmers and consumers? How can we ensure

that suitable GM crop technologies will actually reach the poor through appropriate technology

transfer mechanisms? What is the appropriate level of IPR protection in industrialized and

developing countries? Finding answers to these and other relevant questions will require more

research and a more constructive public and policy dialogue.

15

References

Barrows, G., Sexton, S. and Zilberman, D. (2014). Agricultural biotechnology: The promise and

prospects of genetically modified crops. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28, 99-120.

EASAC (2013). Planting the Future: Opportunities and Challenges for Using Crop Genetic

Improvement Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture. EASAC Policy Report 21, Halle:

European Academies Science Advisory Council.

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Wechsler, J.J., Livingston, M. and Mitchell, L. (2014). Genetically

engineered crops in the United States. Economic Research Report ERR-162, Washington, DC:

United Sates Department of Agriculture.

Gilbert, N. (2013) A hard look at GM crops. Nature 497, 24-26.

ISAAA (2018). Biotech information resource. http://www.isaaa.org/, International Service for the

Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

James, C. (2017). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2016. ISAAA Brief 53,

Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

Kathage, J. and Qaim, M. (2012). Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus

thuringiensis) cotton in India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109,

11652-11656.

Klümper, W. and Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops.

PLOS ONE 9, e111629.

NAS (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) (2016). Genetically

engineered crops: Experiences and prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies

Press.

Paarlberg, R.L. (2008). Starved for science: How biotechnology is being kept out of Africa.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16

Qaim, M. (2016). Genetically modified crops and agricultural development. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Qaim, M. (2009). The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource

Economics 1, 665-693.

Qaim, M. and Kouser, S. (2013). Genetically modified crops and food security. PLOS ONE 8,

e64879.

Smyth, S.J., Phillips, P.W.B. and Castle, D., eds. (2014). Handbook on agriculture,

biotechnology and development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Stone, G.D. (2010). The anthropology of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of

Anthropology 39, 381-400.

Zaidi, S.S., Vanderschuren, H., Qaim, M., Mahfouz, M.M., Kohli, A., Mansoor, S., Tester, M.

(2019). New plant breeding technologies for food security. Science 363, 1390-1391.

17