international fertilizer correspondent No 6

NEWS FROM THE MARKET

GMOs - benefit or threat?

The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for production of feed and food is highly controversial, especially in Europe. The fear is that there may be food and biosafety risks associated with the use of GMO seeds and food prepared from GMOs. Whereas some nations, for example Brazil, forbid the cultivation of GMOs, others have embraced the technology with enthusiasm. Growers in the USA, Canada, Argentina and Paraguay, for example, are increasingly turning to GM crops. GM soybean is grown on 40 million acres on US farms. In Paraguay half the soybean acreage is covered with GM crops. In Argentina the percentage is over 90%.

Transgenic plants are developed either to possess a specific trait to improve yield probability or to contain valuable ingredients conferring medical or health benefits. To the first group belong varieties which are resistant to a particular pest or disease, which tolerate specific herbicides, or which tolerate climate and soil-borne stress such as drought, frost or salinity. Such traits lower production costs, reduce yield loss, increase profits and expand cropping into marginal areas with climatic and soil-related limitations. A well-known example is the ‘Roundup-Ready soybean’ which resists this particular herbicide. Functional food belongs to the second group. A well-quoted example is ‘golden rice’, i.e. transgenic rice which is able to synthesise pro-vitamin A in the endosperm (1). Traditional rice varieties do not contain pro-vitamin A and, in poorer rice-consuming nations, vitamin A deficiency is a serious health problem. Worldwide, vitamin A deficiency affects some 400 million people leaving them vulnerable to infections and blindness. Another example is iron-enriched rice (2). Iron deficiency affects about 30% of the world population.

Health and environmental concerns on the one hand, commercial interests on the other and the need for a new ‘Green Revolution’, especially in developing countries to assure food security, have to be kept in mind when discussing GMOs. Brazil, claiming its GM-free status, expects better market opportunities for its soybean in Western Europe and Japan than its neighbour, Argentina, with 90% GMOs despite the additional price that the customer will have to pay for the extra costs in logistics and control. But what line should populous countries like India or China take, or poor countries such as Kenya where food security has top priority? Knowing that growth rate in food grain production based on conventional varieties declines, and that progress in gaining higher yield with traditional breeding is slow, can those countries afford to ignore the potential that biotechnology has to maintain self-sufficiency in food and assure food security?

In this context, Paarlberg from IFPRI (3) looks into the policy choices open to and exercised by Brazil, China, India and Kenya. He classifies these into the areas of intellectual property rights, food safety, biosafety, trade and public research investment. Common to all four countries is a promotional and permissive policy towards GM crops as they relate to food safety and consumer choice. Of course consumers in developing countries have more serious food safety risks to worry about than the still hypothetical risk associated with GM crops. Brazil, China and India also invest public funds to create their own GMOs, a policy that Kenya cannot follow due to limited budget resources. China also follows a permissive policy in trade and biosafety. The latter is of precautionary concern in Brazil, India and Kenya. Release of GM crops may be blocked, as in Brazil, by a federal court judge requiring a full environmental impact assessment. Field trials may be attacked by anti-GM activists as in India or, as in Kenya, the administrative process to approve testing may be heavily delayed. Signals from consumers in Europe and Japan that they are not ready to accept food from GM crops may discourage farmers in developing countries from growing them for fear of endangering market opportunities. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that drafting of biosafety policies in resource-poor developing countries can easily fall under the influence of donors. Irrespective of whether the regional introduction of GM crops is delayed or even forbidden, what choices are open to developing countries confronted with a growing population but exhausted resources? Biotechnology will, without doubt, become one of the major inputs to agriculture in future along with fertilizers, irrigation, crop protection and husbandry.

As far as nutrient management of GM crops is concerned, there will be only an indirect influence. Better resistance to biotic and abiotic stress, and thus better yield probability, may encourage and justify investing in fertilizers. By eliminating yield-limiting factors, transgenic plants may also be more responsive to fertilizers. However, it is doubtful whether any studies have been financed to look into the nutrient use efficiency of transgenic plants.

(1) Xudong Ye et al. (2000): Engineering the provitamin A (b-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287, pp. 303-305.
(2) Goto, F. et al. (1999): Iron fortification of rice seed by the soybean ferritin gene. Nature biotechnology 17, 282-286.
(3) Paarlberg, R.L. (2000): Governing the GM crop revolution. Policy choices for developing countries. Food, Agriculture, and the environment discussion paper 33 of International Food Policy Research Institute, IFPRI, Washington DC, USA.