Towards Agricultural Growth, Agricultural ...

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 14:52 06 February 2015

form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Genetically Modified Crops: Towards Agricultural Growth, Agricultural Development or Agricultural Sustainability?

Department of Geography, Ghent University, Belgium

2

cr ip

1

us

Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University, Iran 3

Department of Fisheries and Environmental Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Iran Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, Belgium

5

Economics and Rural Development, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium

M

an

4

Address correspondence to Hossein Azadi, Department of Geography, Ghent University, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]

ce pt ed

Abstract The present debate on how to increase global food production in a sustainable way has focused on arguments over the pros and cons of genetically modified (GM) crops. Scientists in both public and private sectors clearly regard GM technology as a major new set of tools while industry sees it as an opportunity for increased profits. However, it remains questionable whether GM crops can contribute to agricultural growth, agricultural development and agricultural sustainability. This review paper examines and discusses the role of GM crops in agricultural

Ac


t

HOSSEIN AZADI1, MANSOUR GHANIAN2, OMID M. GHUCHANI2, PARISA RAFIAANI KHACHAK3, CLAUVIS N. T. TANING1,4, ROGHAYE Y. HAJIVAND2 THOMAS DOGOT5

growth, agricultural development and agricultural sustainability. While the contribution of GM crops to agriculture productivity is obvious in certain regions, their contributions to agricultural development and sustainability remain uncertain.

1

Keywords Food security, Food safety, Food policy, Gene revolution, Green revolution, Agricultural technology.

t

Introduction

cr ip

Green Revolution and its successor, the Gene Revolution. The term “Green Revolution” was

us

coined in 1968 to describe the phenomenal growth in agriculture (1). It involved the application of science to increase agricultural growth, principally through the use of breeding techniques to

an

produce high yield varieties (HYVs). These HYVs together with the increased use of pesticides and fertilizers, improved irrigation, mechanization, and also soil conservation by less use of

M

machinery, and ultimately resulted in the remarkable growth in agriculture experienced (2). During this period, food production increased significantly (3; 4), remarkably for rice in Asia,

ce pt ed

maize in Mesoamerica and some parts of Africa and Asia, and wheat in irrigated and suitable areas all over the world (2). A combination of high rate investment in infrastructure and market development, research and suitable policies jointly fueled land productivity. These factors resulted in higher growth and land values (5). However, the declining trend of agricultural growth in the decades before 1995 comprises a reduction in growth within several high-income countries, particularly in Japan and Western Europe (6).

Ac


Global agriculture has until now experienced two major technological revolutions; that is, the

The use of biotechnology, especially genetic engineering technology in agriculture to combat food insecurity and hunger, in turn generated the Gene Revolution (7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12). The gene revolution resulted in the mass production of crops with altered genes generally known as “Genetically Modified Organisms” (GMOs). These GMOs have genes that have been modified

2

using genetic engineering techniques, to tolerate pests and herbicides, drought and also to improve the growth of the plant. Although GM technology was promoted as a tool to make a significant change to the overall

cr ip

generated conflicting outcomes (13). GM technology is seen by some to have positive effects on biodiversity, since the sequencing of genomes provides capacity for selective breeding of crops

us

suited to diverse ecologies. This implies that GM technology augments nature’s diversity and also expands adaptive capabilities (14). Opponents of GM technology argue that farmers in

an

developing countries, especially small-scale farmers, have problems that are specific to their economic, cultural and environmental conditions. Hence, the spillover from private sector

M

research in developed countries has therefore had limited impact on the livelihoods of

ce pt ed

subsistence farmers in developing countries who produce most of the world’s food (15). The creation of GM crops may attract investment in agriculture, but it can also concentrate ownership of agricultural resources. Hence, it remains questionable whether this branch of science can really improve the situation of small-scale farmers (16; 3) who hold about 500 million small farms and support almost 2 billion people - one third of humanity (17). Consequently, the technology has stimulated of debate over its ecological, technological, political, socio-economic, and legal aspects, especially in developing countries (12; 59). Hence, it remains questionable

Ac


t

sustainability of agricultural food production systems worldwide, some practical evidence has

whether GM crops can result in a revolution towards “agricultural development” and “sustainability” or make only a significant change in “agricultural growth”.

3

This paper presents the main potentials and challenges of the GM crops in approaching agricultural growth, development, and sustainability. Accordingly, the paper will first discuss briefly the differences between agricultural growth, development, and sustainability. Then, the

cr ip

t

main potentials and challenges of these crops in approaching agricultural growth, development,

understand, based on which circumstances, GM crops may lead to sustainable agriculture.

us

Agricultural Growth, Development and Sustainability

an

Agricultural Growth

From the 1940s to the 1970s, a remarkable increase in agricultural growth defined by a series of

M

changes in agricultural methods and technologies later known as the Green Revolution occurred. As demand for food increased with rapid population growth and greater affluence, farming

ce pt ed

underwent evolutionary changes to meet the higher demand. During the Green Revolution, chemical fertilizers were largely used, irrigation systems were developed, and high yield varieties were developed. Consequently, an exponential increase in the amount of food production occurred all around the world (18; 19; 20). High productivity, especially for staple food grains, was seen during the Green Revolution. For example, for India, wheat yields increased from 750 kg/ha in 1953–1954 to 2,938 kg/ha in 2010–2011, whereas rice yields

Ac


and sustainability will be discussed. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn to let policy makers

increased from 902 kg/ha in 1953–1954 to 2,240 kg/ha in 2010–2011 (4). Despite the increase in crop yields observed during the Green Revolution, critics found fault. For example, the Green Revolution was criticized for not being beneficial to some regions, especially

4

in Africa (21). The transition from traditional agriculture, in which inputs were generated onfarm, to Green Revolution agriculture, which generally required the purchase of inputs, forced smaller farmers into debt. In many cases, this resulted in a loss of their farmland (79; 21). Also,

cr ip

t

the increased level of mechanization on larger farms made possible by the Green Revolution

unemployment (22). The use of HYVs and related technologies were criticized for being

us

surrounded by serious problems such as environmental degradation (23), lack of infrastructure, governmental corruption, and insecurity in developing nations (19). During this period, generally

an

known as the "Golden Era in Agriculture", more food was produced, but hunger continued (24). However, the unpredicted challenges led to major revisions in development thinking. The

M

recognition of agriculture’s broader role in development with focus on equity and employment,

ce pt ed

and the growing evidence that productivity growth across millions of smallholders was strongly pro-poor was recognized (25). The gradual introduction of the “agricultural development” concept reached its peak during the 1990s when the development community explicitly recognized poverty reduction as the major objective of development programs and a burgeoning literature started to demonstrate the links between “agriculture” and “development” (e.g., 26; 27; 28; 29; 30).

Ac


removed a large source of employment from the rural economy, leading to massive

Agricultural Development Development in agriculture refers to many related activities that can promote the total value of goods and services produced, improve human welfare, quality of life, and social well being. Such a development can ultimately reduce poverty and save lives by promoting better farming

5

conditions, so that agricultural operations can be done more efficiently (31). Agricultural development can help subsistence farmers to have enough to eat, be able to send their children to school, and earn enough money for saving (32). Development in agriculture can be accelerated

cr ip

t

by investing in human capital of rural households, through education, and diffusion of new

In the mid-1960s, development executives understood the need for finding new ways to improve

us

the community condition, because, the Green Revolution had not alleviated hunger and “more hunger and more food at the same time” was the consequence of that era (33). Inequity had

an

significantly increased (34), principally due to lack of legal frameworks to define property rights for issues such as land ownership. These land ownership problems coupled with unequal access

M

to water, credit and other resources led to overuse of irrigation water and chemical fertilizers by

ce pt ed

rural elites. Also, women were more marginalized in rural areas and an increase in the migration of the rural population to urban areas was seen (35). These difficulties faced during the Green Revolution almost balanced out the positive gains. In reaction to the unforeseen negative impacts of the Green Revolution, the international development community started measuring and improving the negative impacts of agricultural growth (36), focusing on alleviating rural poverty, improving food insecurity and achieving

Ac


agricultural technologies in rural areas (25).

economic growth on a sustainable basis. The increase of subsistence farmers’ incomes and an improvement of their living standards resulted in more income security, poverty reduction and new employment opportunities. Also, poor people could have better access to land and public goods, such as education, and also to medicines against diseases, such as malaria and cholera

6

(37; 38). Agricultural development was gradually focused on gender, which improved the equity between men and women and reduced the poverty and hunger for all (39). In Vietnam, for example, agricultural development caused significant improvement in the economic conditions

cr ip

t

of rural households (40). A similar example was in China where equal land distribution as a

Although agricultural development improved the access to primary education, healthcare and

us

reduced poverty, the intensive use of fertilizers and plant protection chemicals still persisted (42). Lack of sufficient knowledge to protect the environment by the farmers led to the excessive

an

use of plant protection chemicals and fertilizers, which in turn brought in new community problems (34). Local species were lost (43), water sources were contaminated (44), and chemical

M

pesticide residues in foods caused new diseases and illnesses (45). As a response to such

ce pt ed

environmental problems, “agricultural sustainability” was introduced as a new approach to deal with environmental problems. Agricultural Sustainability

Although the term sustainability in agriculture was previously considered in the 16th century (46), the term did not appear on the public debates until the late 1980s. Sustainable agriculture means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices that will, over the long-term

Ac


result of development plans led to a significant decrease in poverty (41).

satisfy food, feed, and fiber needs; but also enhance environmental and human health (47). The roots of this type of agriculture are in five key challenges that threaten the future viability of agricultural systems, especially at local and regional levels. These challenges include: land degradation, limits to water availability, loss of biodiversity, declining agriculture genetic

7

diversity, and climate change (48). Sustainable agriculture makes the most efficient use of nonrenewable and on-farm resources and also integrates, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls, sustains the economic viability of farm operations, and enhances the quality

cr ip

t

of life for farmers and the society as a whole (49). Sustainable agriculture works mainly with the

agricultural growth and development (8). It is a system that applies proper management of

us

natural resources (50; 51; 52; 53). In other words, sustainable agriculture seeks to reduce chemical inputs, uses ecological pest and weed management, maintains soil fertility, rural and

an

urban community's empowerment, produces constant farm income, and promotes healthy family and social values (54). Supplying human nutritional needs should maintain both environmental

M

quality and prevent the degradation of natural resources (55). In sustainable agriculture, reducing pressure on land under cultivation (56), minimizing use of chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides)

ce pt ed

and natural resources, and protecting the health of present and future generations, are among the main objectives (57).

Sustainability originated as a response to the global challenge of dealing with agriculture as a whole and interconnected system. The concept of sustainability and its related notion of sustainable development are derived from a global belief that human activity for long periods cannot be sustained. As an instruction, it requires us indirectly to have a sense of feeling

Ac


rural population to address political and socio-economic problems that are an obstacle for both

responsible to improve or change our lifestyle, so as to be able to deal with looming social, ecological and economic crises (58).

8

There are some key policies that can lead to sustainability such as: investing in extension systems for adapting technologies, providing technical assistance for natural resource management, promoting support for agricultural development programs, particularly for women,

cr ip

t

developing partnerships and applying participatory approaches, and integrating the concept of

goal that many people look forward to, achieving this may be extremely difficult in practice,

us

since sustainable agriculture involves many different dimensions and elements, some of which may come into conflict with each other. Such a difficulty has increasingly been understood when

an

taking the impacts of GM crops into account. The following section explains such impacts.

M

The Impacts of GM Crops on Agriculture GM Crops and Agricultural Growth

ce pt ed

The Green Revolution enabled many countries in Asia and Latin America to achieve food selfsufficiency. Similarly, new GM seeds are also being promoted as a route to food self-sufficiency (4). The use of GM crops has been documented to significantly boost agricultural productivity while decreasing maintenance costs such as, pesticides costs (59). Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops, for instance, have improved farm income in many regions of the world by increasing productivity and decreasing maintenance costs. Soybean, corn, cotton and canola had the greatest

Ac


agricultural sustainability into poverty reduction (48). While sustainable agriculture is an ideal

contribution to this increase between 1996 and 2007 (60). A survey in South Africa pointed out that farmers cultivating Bt maize, compared to conventional maize, achieved yields ranging from 7% to 12% higher in 1999-2001. In addition, lower pesticide costs caused significant income increases from 25.23 to 156.40 dollars per hectare. A similar result was reported from the US,

9

India and Spain (61). Also, the use of GM maize hybrids developed during the last decade in North America, caused high profitability (62). The GM herbicide tolerant (HT) technology in soybeans has incremented farm incomes by $3.3 billion in 2010 and also for Bt canola, an

cr ip

GM crops are generally designed to be resistant to unsuitable environments, insects, and weeds, making them better than most HYVs available on the market (64). The GM cultivated area grew

us

more than 10% per year around the world between 1989 and 1997. The percentage increased by 15% in 2003 in comparison with 2002 (65; 66). Between 1995 and 2001, rice consumption

an

increased by 5.3%, whereas the production rate grew by 8.4% annually (3). This increase in production rate is principally due to the increasing use of GM rice to meet the increasing

M

demand. In South Africa, GM maize increased from 6000 hectares in 2001 to 84000 hectares in

ce pt ed

2003 (67). In 2008, 30 GM crops were grown in 25 countries with a total area around 121.41 million hectares, which is nearly the size of the state of Alaska (65; 66). As shown in Figure 1, in 2012, GM crops covered 170.3 million hectares of arable land in 28 countries, where 17.3 million farmers have been the main GM crops’ producer (68). From Figure 2, it is clear that developing countries grew close to 50% (49.9%) of global biotech crops in 2011 (68). Many researchers (9; 10) believe that GM crops could promote agricultural yield while decreasing costs and labor (42; 12). Therefore, given the fact that agriculture is the main source of income

Ac


t

additional $2.7 billion has been boosted from 1996 to 2010 mainly in North America (63).

for the economy and for employment in many developing countries (69), GM technology can be very important in stimulating an increase in agricultural yield and economic growth in these countries (70; 71).

10

[insert Figure 1] [insert Figure 2]

t

Generally, GM traits, such as insect and herbicide tolerance in practice, help increase yields by

cr ip

farmer enjoys increased yields because of insect resistance and herbicide tolerance traits will in

us

large part be determined by how effective the farmer’s insect and weed control programs were before sowing a crop with these traits. Normally, if weeds and insects had been controlled well,

an

then the insect resistance and herbicide tolerance traits would not have been the primary factor in increasing yield. However, in developing countries, where resources to effectively control insects

M

and weeds are often quite limited, these traits have significantly increased the yield (72). Higher yields and increased farm income have been reported in developing countries such as Argentina,

ce pt ed

Mexico, India, South Africa and Burkina Faso. For instance, in India, insect resistant cotton has contributed an additional 41% to cotton production, boosting farm income by $ 9,395.1 million. In South Africa, between 1998 and 2010, insect resistant maize and cotton have contributed an additional 12% and 24.1% to their production, thus increasing farm income by $769 million and $27.1 million respectively. Insect resistant cotton in Burkina Faso has contributed an additional 19% to the cotton production between 2008 and 2010 (73; 74; 75; 76; 77). The same is also true

Ac


protecting the yield that would otherwise be lost due to weeds or insects. The extent to which a

for developed countries where there are particular pests that are hard to control, such as the corn rootworm complex or some perennial weeds (78). Even in scenarios where insect resistance and herbicide tolerance are not the primary factors in increasing yield, GM crops can provide many other benefits such as decreasing fuel and pesticide use, and also with facilitating conservation

11

tillage practices that improve carbon retention, reduce soil erosion and lower greenhouse gas emissions (59). Approximately, 75 percent of the corn and 95 percent of the soybeans cultivated in the United

cr ip

cultivated in Argentina are GM as well (79). Where they are given the choice and opportunity, farmers have consistently adopted GM crops quickly and widely because they see the

us

improvement these crops deliver. Whether in the form of increases in yield or other benefits, the high acceptance of farmers in 30 countries worldwide, who adopted biotech crops at

an

unprecedented rates between 1996 and 2012, shows that they see value in GM crops and their role in agricultural growth through increasing productivity (80). However, inappropriate

M

marketing is considered a major concern regarding GM crops (81). The decision of further

ce pt ed

development as well as transferring GM technology to small-scale farmer is not a choice of individuals in developing countries, but rather it depends on the decisions of large multinational seed companies that own the GM seeds (82). As a result of such ownership, many constraints have emerged regarding the adopting of these seeds (83). Lack of control over the uses of GM seeds has affected many farmers responses to GM foods (84). It is companies decision to set ‘technology fees’ for users of latest developed GM crops such as Bt cotton. Such fees may be accepted by large-scale farmers in developed countries, but they might result in preventing

Ac


t

States are GM. Half the soybeans grown in Brazil and more than 95 percent of the soybeans

small-scale farmers in developing world from adopting GM crops. There are concerns that some farmers might re-use seeds kept from former seasons, or purchase seeds illegally in order to avoid the high costs of buying GM seeds. Both options often result in substantially decreased yields. Such events have lately been observed in India. Hence, marketing control of seed

12

companies and technology ownership are considered to be major issues. For example, Monsanto has control over 95% of the Indian market for cotton seeds and this exclusive control has caused a great increase in the prices (85). It is good to increase the possibility of farmers’ genuine choice

cr ip

t

as much as possible. To achieve this, the first important step is to promote crops research

of yield for farmers (86).

us

GM Crops and Agricultural Development

an

Recently, questions such as: “What will farms look like in 20 years? Is there a role for GM crops to play? Do small-scale farmers hold the key to global food security? Will agriculture be able to

M

end the poverty in developing countries?” have constantly been raised when talking about agricultural development. The answers to these questions remain complex and can only be

ce pt ed

extrapolated to the future by analyzing the past and current experiences. GM crops cultivated in different countries around the world are constantly increasing every year (87). According to Commission Green Biotechnology, these crops have significantly increased the income of resource-poor farmers in developing countries (88). Small farmers in China, South Africa, the Philippines and other developing countries have largely adopted GM crops. Such an experience shows that small farmers can also benefit from the technology through increasing yield and

Ac


(whether GM or not) by providing support from the public sector that can result in minimal loss

reducing the cost of agricultural activities, including the cost of pests and disease management (63). Due to some advantages of GM crops such as elimination of micronutrient malnutrition (89; 90; 91) and the increase in revenue, millions of farmers around the world trust these crops (87). These advantages earned from growing GM crops have been documented to ultimately lead

13

to an improvement in the lifestyle of small-scale farmers (70; 92). Advocates for GM in developing countries similarly mention the potential advantages of increased yield and profits, simpler farm management, and benefits to environment as well as human health (93). Some Bt

cr ip

t

crops developed in developing countries (e.g., Bt cotton in China and India), benefit

small farmers will have less costs and can therefore save more money (3). Some studies show

us

that these overall increases in income and production rates from using GM crops principally occurred in developing countries, especially among resource-poor farmers (60). Nevertheless,

an

problems of seed supply because of higher price of GM seeds are one of the most important impediments to adoption of GM technology by small-scale farmers. The price will exclude

M

resource-poor farming communities with small capacity to pay from benefit sharing and thereby prevent them from the application of the technology (96). Furthermore, companies apply other

ce pt ed

legal (e.g., patents, plant variety protection, and contract growing) and biological ways to make GM seeds excludable (97). For example, with respect to biological methods of exclusion, companies prevent farmers from saving GM seed for future use (98). As a result, to secure returns on their investments, companies that produce GM crops may apply terms such as gene use restriction technology (GURT), or ‘terminator technology’, which leads to seed sterility (86). The primary source of seeds for small-scale farming families in the developing world depends on

Ac


smallholders through reducing the number of pesticide sprayings (94; 88; 95). This means that

farm-saved seed. Terminator seeds will force dependence on external seed sources and will disrupt the normal behavior of farmers who are obliged to buy GM crops in every growing season from the company.

14

According to Commission Green Biotechnology, there exists evidence that GM maize is less subjected to pollution by mycotoxins such as fumonisin, aflatoxin and toxins produced by fungi that cause health problems particularly for children and animals (88). Golden Rice (GM crop)

cr ip

t

significantly reduces health problems such as vitamin A deficiency, preventing up to 40,000

reduction in toxic pesticide use from adopting the current generation of GM crops. In China,

us

pesticide poisoning of GM cotton farmers have been over six times lower than those farmers cultivating non-GM cotton (100). Moreover, in India, Mal and his colleagues (101) found that

an

the value of Environmental Impact Quotient for Bt cotton was less than non-Bt cotton, indicating less damage to the environment. These examples show that GM crops can play an important role

M

in food safety and poverty alleviation in developing countries (99).

ce pt ed

Nevertheless, small farmers still face some challenges using GM technologies. For example, GM seeds in most cases require special care, a different input mix from the traditional seed, and new patterns of supervision and control. These mean that farmers need to learn and adapt to new techniques. Also, GM crops require some investments in the farm such as land preparation, irrigation, terracing, and the acquisition of machinery (59). These challenges however can be tackled through a number of ways ranging from technology transfer training programs to financial assistance for start-up (102). In other words, increasing food safety at a global scale

Ac


child deaths every year (99). There is evidence of positive farmer health effects related to a

depends on ongoing investments in GM techniques and the possibility of successful commercial introduction of the new crop varieties. According to the analysis carried out by Smyth et al. (103), the price of corn-based foods would increase about 6%. They found that considering cornbased food products as a critical component of diets in many developing countries has been

15

posing more challenges to the current food insecurity than many consumers in developing countries are dealing with (103). Results of some studies indicate that the adoption of GM technology by farmers may depend on

cr ip

small-holders (104). However, other studies show that the main adopters of insect resistant cotton and maize in South Africa are both large and small farmers (60). Economic issues such as

us

the possibility of a higher income and the reduction of weed control costs also affect the adoption rate of GM crops by farmers (105). Jakson (106) discusses a new approach for the adoption of

an

technologies called "nexus" that expresses the relationship between technology and social related issues such as: knowledge of farmers, social inequalities, land ownership, gender and indigenous

M

identity (4). This is also true in the case of GM technology. The adoption of this technology and

ce pt ed

its products by producers and consumers are very important. For example, putting in place measures to ensure both GM and non-GM crops are available may influence farmers’ attitudes towards GM crop adoption (105). At the same time, the implementation of a policy such as insurance cover, tax policy and any financial cost for famers, when they compare between GM and non GM crops, would have a negative impact on farmers’ attitudes on adoption and consequently may be a barrier for the adoption of GM technology (105). Areal et al. (105) found that as GM farmers are responsible to implement coexistence measures related to a monetary

Ac


t

the size of their farms. Specifically, large scale farmers adopt GM technology more easily than

compensation to neighbors and the implementation of a tax policy for sowing GM crops, the application of these measures would increase their costs and subsequently may cause the rejection of GMHT maize. The adoption of a new technology such as GM technology can be conceived as resulting from a balancing between its profitability and farmers’ attitude towards

16

the risk associated with it. Past studies have shown that farmers in developing countries are risk averse and therefore tend to delay the decision to accept the technology (59). For example, the opponents of GM crops in Africa argue that the technology will cause significant environmental

cr ip

t

damage, exacerbate food safety, and as a result a company may be even forced to leave the

with a significant push to the overall development in agriculture. However, and despite

us

insufficient evidence against GM crops, the European Union (EU) has not yet been convinced that using GM crops is safe despite investing more than $425 million on researching the safety of

an

GM crops during the last 25 years (108). They even established a panel called European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which evaluates the GM products before authorization in the EU

M

region.

ce pt ed

GM Crops and Agricultural Sustainability

The appropriate use of resources is one of the most important aspects of sustainability in agriculture. Profitability and increase in production during the last 100 years have been primarily based on two main reasons: genetic improvement (109) and an increase in the use of resources (110; 111). Many agricultural resources are limited (112); therefore, in the long term, the wise use of resources is very important. The future of sustainable agriculture depends not only on the

Ac


agriculture business in total (107). Nevertheless, adoption rates of GM crops still increase yearly

advanced use of management practices, but also in the use of advanced scientific methods to produce more and healthier foods. In this regard, genetic improvement of wheat, barley, rye, soy, etc., to increase performance while limiting environmental pollution has been important (113; 114; 115). The use of GM technology in agriculture (especially herbicide and insecticide

17

tolerance crops) reduced the application of agricultural inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers (116). It has also reduced the need for tillage operations and increased carbon sequestration, hence reducing the accumulation of green house gases (60).

cr ip

resources have made sustainable food production the main topic in most discussions about agricultural sustainability. What we eat and how our food is grown are increasingly political

us

questions. Sustainable agriculture might be considered as the major consequence of the application of GM crops (117). Such consequences could be reached through different ways. For

an

example, GM crops have been documented to play a major role in some integrated pest management (IPM) systems with benefits for farmers and environment. In other words, GM

M

crops have broadened opportunities for other IPM tactics such as biological control and

ce pt ed

intelligent resistance management (118).

Despite the numerous possibilities of GM crops in sustainable agriculture, it is not a panacea to all the complex difficulties existing in agricultural sustainability. In Switzerland for instance, Speiser et al. (13) realized that though the use of GM crops had a negative effect on biodiversity, it also had positive effects on soil texture through increased "field capacity”. They also showed that GM crops had a limited impact on sustainability and did not solve many bottlenecks of

Ac


t

Concerns about climate change, high food prices, and competition over increasingly scarce

production (e.g., leaching of pesticides into water and threatening the biodiversity) (13). The critics of genetic engineering argue that GM crops are sensitive to mutagenicity (119; 120), can lead to the creation of super weeds (that are resistant to herbicide) (12), can cause allergic reactions to man (42; 70; 71; 120; 121; 122; 123) and animal (120), may stimulate the evolution

18

of risky recombinant viruses and pathogens (124; 125), and can cause serious threats to plant and animal biodiversities in natural ecosystems in the long run (9; 120; 126; 3). Among all these, the most common concerns regarding GMOs are related to health risks, environmental pollution, and

cr ip

In relation to health issues, there is concern that intense allergic reactions could happen in consuming GM food products due to splicing of new genes into crops and that all foods

us

comprising GM crops are not required to be labeled. Nordlee et al. (128) for example, found that Brazil-nut gene introduced to soybeans could worsen allergic reactions in people who are

an

sensitive to Brazil GM soybeans. In Australia, GM peas were identified to induce allergenic reactions in mice. Mice were more sensitive to other food allergies due to the introduction of GM

M

peas (129). Guimaraes et al. (130) also demonstrated that it is more likely that GM Bt (Cry1Ab)

ce pt ed

crops induce allergenic reactions even when it is the first time that the product has been introduced. However, applicant companies (i.e., Monsanto and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)) have held this view that the Cry1Ab toxin has no harm to human consumption (130). Yum et al. (131) stated that the first step to assess the allergenicity of GMO food is to consider immunologic and physicochemical characterizations. They observed a unique strong immunoglobulin protein bands at 80 kDa in GMO soybeans and concluded that more research, including a selection of controlled sample materials and immunoassays of qualified sera, is

Ac


t

possible biodiversity loss (127).

needed for assessing the allergenic potential of GM products (131). Another risk related to GM changes is that GMOs have the potential to be toxic to humans and animals. One of the most recent GM crops that may cause toxicity is the GM maize line called

19

MON 863 (YieldGard Rootworm Corn), which has been approved in the US in 2003 and particularly spliced into the corn rootworm (132). However, findings of a study on feeding rats demonstrated that there is no difference between rats fed conventional maize and those that ate

cr ip

t

GM maize without any association with biological attributes. Accordingly, EFSA declared that

al. (134) found that feeding mice GM soya disturbed the functions of pancreas, liver and tests.

us

Furthermore, Tudisco et al. (135) carried out a study on rabbits fed GM soybean meal and found some metabolic changes occurred in their liver.

an

Very few studies have been conducted on the direct effects of GM foods on humans. Results from one of these few studies showed that GM soya has unexpected effects on gut bacteria,

M

but the effect was never further studied (136). In the Philippines, a toxic reaction to the Bt maize

ce pt ed

pollen brought about serious concerns in 2004 when around 100 individuals living close to a GM maize farmland were reported to have shown symptoms of extreme stomach pain, headache, allergies, dizziness and vomiting just during the time that the pollen was in the air (137). Although research is still being conducted, preliminary findings of researcher presented at the Malaysian CoP/MoP 2 conference on GM food safety showed an antibody reaction in blood to the Bt toxin, demonstrating the fact that GM promoters work in living cells of human. Although such issues need to be taken as serious concerns, no study so far has adequately confirmed that

Ac


MON 863 is as safe as the conventional maize for consumption (133). Nevertheless, Malatesta et

the commercial release of GM crop can be toxic. Another concern is that genetic engineering often utilizes antibiotic-resistance genes as “selectable markers” that could result in producing antibiotic-resistant bacterial traits that are

20

resistant to current antibiotics. This would cause a major public health issue. Related to these concerns, however, the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) concluded that it is highly unlikely that genes within GM food can result in bacteria in the people’s gut who consume them (138).

cr ip

t

Although there is no conclusive evidence that these drug-resistant types of crops need to be

interested in adopting methods to eliminate marker genes from a crop plant before its

us

introduction for commercial use (139).

One more concern regarding the potential risk of GM crops is the possibility of the existence of

an

other toxic substances within them (like increased amounts of heavy metals) and that the crops might not be considered equal with regard to amount of proteome, genome, and metabolome in

M

comparison with unmodified crops (140). Another issue frequently mentioned by opponents is

ce pt ed

that GM crops may be less nutritious; for instance, they might include lower level of phytoestrogens, which are useful for protection against cancer and heart disease (141). Pusztai et al. (142) have also considered the potential effects of GM crops on the gastrointestinal tract. They reported that stomach erosion and necrosis were observed in rats fed with flavr-savrTM GM tomatoes, while GM potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis (GNA) lectin showed proliferative growth in their stomach which is specifically critical for those who take into account that erosions of glomelular stomach can result in life-threatening hemorrhage, particularly in the

Ac


considered as unsafe products for humans, the risk is significant enough to cause scientists to be

elderly and patients on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (142). Besides, many concerns and possible risks exist with regard to environmental impacts of GM crops. These include potential effects on biodiversity, specifically on their impacts on nontarget

21

and unintended organisms, comprising insect herbivores, natural enemies, pollinators and soil microbiota (143, 144). A further concern is that genes might find their way into nontarget species in the environment, such as herbicide-resisting genes that move into weeds, as well as possible

cr ip

t

adverse effects to birds or insects that may have contact with GM crops (145). For example,

behavior (146) and survival (147) of the monarch butterfly which is the most famous North

us

American butterfly. Moreover, weed resistance to Roundup is now a scary issue in the US and South America (148) where Roundup Ready crops are cultivated on a large scale (149; 150).

an

Significant proportion of glyphosate (151) or further herbicides (152) are required to deal with these ‘super weeds’ that have the potential to add more toxicity to food and the environment.

M

Although these are all reliable concerns, to date, some scientific researches on the environmental

ce pt ed

and health effects of GM crops are realized incomplete (142; 145). For example, Domingo (153) stated, while a significant number of general news, commentaries and letters have been published in reliable international journals, “experimental” and scientifically reliable works published on the safety of GM crops are surprisingly very scant. Later, Domingo (140) conducted a critical review on the published scientific literature associated with the potential health risks of GM crops. According to him, experimental evidence on the potential risks of GM crops is very scarce. As shown throughout his paper, most assessments are short-term studies

Ac


long-term exposure to pollen from GM insect-resistant maize creates harmful impacts on the

mainly on nutritional issues, with very limited toxicological data (154), especially in the longterm that should prove the safety of GM crops for food and feed (155). These are also in line with the findings of a recent study conducted by Zdziarski et al. (156) who confirm that there is an incomplete picture regarding the toxicity and safety of GM products used by humans and

22

animals. They stated that each GM crop should be evaluated by a series of long-term studies carried out to show its safety level (157). As a result, the review of current literature shows that the available GM crops in the market are generally safe for human consumption; using them has

cr ip

t

not been reported as a major health issue. Yet, because of potential for exposure of a large

sure that GM foods are safe for human consumption (158; 159) and whether they can be a central

us

focus towards sustainable agriculture in the future. Accordingly, Snow et al. (144) recommend that the large-scale release of GM products should be prevented if scientific evidence about

an

possible risks is insufficient or available knowledge demonstrates the potential for major unexpected effects. The introduction of every existing new technology in history has always

M

come with skepticism from the population. Unlike the Green Revolution, in which the potential risks were not anticipated at the onset, the potential risks of modern biotechnology were

ce pt ed

immediately acknowledged and the Asilomar conference on biosafety in 1975 immediately served as the start point for the subsequent development of risk assessment protocols for genetically modified organisms (160; 161; 162). Discussion

As mentioned above, the world population is on the rise and will reach 9 billion by year 2050 as

Ac


proportion of human population to GM foods, it is necessary to conduct more studies to make

per current statistics. Therefore, as shown in Figure 3, by 2050 the global demand for cereals (mainly maize, wheat, and rice) will be two times more than the current request. According to the figure, the productivity of maize is expected to rise from 1000 to 2250 million tones over a period of 40 years. Similar trend can be explained for other major products including wheat and

23

rice of which more than 1700 million tones should be produced to meet the increasing demands by 2050. To keep pace with population growth and food demand, it is estimated that in the next 40 years, food production must increase greatly with the limited availability of arable land,

cr ip

t

water, and fossil fuels, exacerbated by climate change (163). Increasing food production in order

the anticipated climate changes will entail increased access to genetic resources (14).

us

[insert Figure 3]

an

Numerous recent articles and declarations extol the potential of GM crops for world food production (165; 166). Statistically, GM crops have significantly increased agricultural yield (59)

M

and such a success explains why GM crops are increasingly grown by farmers in many countries. In 2011, 16.7 million farmers grew GM crops on almost 160 million hectares of land in 29

ce pt ed

countries, 19 of which were developing countries (167). Importantly, 90% of the farmers growing GM crops were resource-poor and small-holder farmers who produced almost half of the GM crops grown worldwide in the last two years (167; 168). Despite the rapid adoption rates, it remains questionable whether GM plants represent the best option available to boost agricultural growth. For example, while adopting Bt cotton seeds have decreased pesticides use and increased Chinese farmers’ incomes since 1999, the results of a study conducted in 2004

Ac


to meet the demand for an expanding world population as well as growing concerns regarding

showed that the benefits from adopting Bt cotton were not significant considering the increased pesticides used to control secondary pests (169; 170). Moreover, Bt toxin has resulted in, resistance of GM maize to a pest called rootworm in the US (171). Nevertheless, some proponents have gone so far as to argue that GM crops are the only solution to the globe’s future

24

need for plant-based food production (172; 173). However, one could easily argue that most modern crop research has a molecular focus and is related to the development of GM crops, while other areas such as plant biodiversity, crop physiology and cropping systems research

cr ip

t

attract less attention, in spite of their obvious relevance for the problems facing the world’s food

by pests and other limitation). Gruère and Sun (174) showed that although Bt cotton contributed

us

significantly to cotton yield growth (with 0.29–0.39 % annual yield increase per percent adoption, or a total 19 % increase from 1975 to 2010), other key factors than the Bt trait had a

an

significant effect, especially the use of fertilizers and of hybrid seeds. In this regard, Hofs and Berti (175) argue that Bt cotton must be taken as a useful tool for integrated crop management

M

but not as a solution for poverty reduction. Human labor, pesticides, and the use of irrigation were also found to be important to boost agricultural production. According to The Union of

ce pt ed

Concerned Scientists, a science-based nonprofit organization, the record of GM crops in contributing to increased yield is modest in the USA, despite considerable efforts (176). For instance, the adoption of Bt maize (177) and HT soybean (178) in the US had an adverse economic impact in 1998. Similarly, GM soya seeds produced consistently lower amount of yields for more than a decade (179). Controlled field trials comparing GM and non-GM soya showed that 50% of the reduction in yield is because of the genetic disruptive impact of the GM

Ac


supply (such as limitation in land and water around the world and decrease of production yield

transforming process (180). Moreover, the field tests of Bt insecticide-producing maize hybrids demonstrated that these crops needed more time to reach maturity and generated over 12% lower yields compared to their non-GM counterpart (181). Nevertheless, GM crops may have significantly played a role in agricultural growth. Of 168 datasets comparing yields of GM and

25

conventional crops, 124 showed increased yields for adopters, 32 indicated no difference, and 13 were negative (166). The role of GM crops in agricultural development remains very controversial. Although the

cr ip

Revolution of the 1950s (2; 182), the green revolution had an explicit strategy for technology development and diffusion, targeting farmers in developing countries, in which improved

us

germplasm was made freely available as a public good, and was in particular a success in Asia. In contrast to the Green Revolution, the push for GMOs is based largely on private agricultural

an

research, with varieties provided to farmers on market terms (2). The results of Pray and Nagarajan (183) showed that Bt cotton seed sales in India greatly increased the income of private

M

seed firms. Such an increase in Indian firms’ income was considered as one of the critical

ce pt ed

determinants of research and development (183). In India, Monsanto has control over 95 % of the Indian cotton seed market and this near monopoly has resulted in greatly increased prices (184). Monsanto has even been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GM seeds without paying royalties, and there are plenty of cases — including a 1999 case of a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for growing the company's Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty or "technology fee" — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by

Ac


t

introduction of GM crop technology has been hailed as a Gene Revolution similar to the Green

evidence. But according to Charles (185), Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination (the company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they do not belong).

26

The benefit to farmers varies from 5% to 40%, considering the price and yield impacts, as well as the cost of purchasing seeds (186). Farmers have been promised higher yields and lower pesticide costs when using GM crops, primarily those with the Bt gene, thus they acquired loans

cr ip

t

to afford the costly seeds. When, in many cases, the farmers found that the yields failed to meet

among farmers (184). Also, Ahmed (187) further opines that Monsanto’s operation in India

us

illustrates monopolization and manipulation of the market economy, especially when corruption is rampant. The application of GM technology has however been documented to reduce the

an

production costs of expensive farm inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, hence contributing to the income of small-scale farmers (188; 87; 189; 190). Between 1996 and 2010, the half of

M

cumulative farm income gained by developing countries was almost equal to US$ 40 billion (63). The economic gains by farmers in different regions depend on market policies, seed costs,

ce pt ed

access to labor, and water in different regions as well as farm structure. For instance, smallholder farmers that adopted Bt varieties of white maize in South Africa did benefit from planting Bt maize in high maize stalk borer infestation years. But when they planted in locations or years when stalk borers were not a problem, Bt was not profitable because of higher seed costs (191). McMichael and Schneider (192) argue that the globalised market driven approach has transformed food into a global commodity that responds to monetary demand, not social need. It

Ac


the expected result, the consequences have been serious, leading to high levels of indebtedness

sees the poorest consumers in direct competition for basic grain foods with rich consumers, the intensive meat industry, and now biofuels manufacturers. Meanwhile, the poorest farmers are increasingly pressured to enter export markets, reducing the availability of locally grown food

27

for local consumption or self consumption, hence increasing vulnerability to food shortage in response to price fluctuations. In developing countries, instruments such as patents for GM crops present an additional problem

cr ip

individual farmers while also potentially undermining local practices for securing food and economic sustainability. Therefore, there is particular concern regarding present intellectual

us

property rights instruments, which may inhibit seed-saving, exchange, sale, and access to proprietary materials of vital importance. For GM crops to adequately play a significant role in

an

agricultural development, the world needs to look outside the square of industrial agriculture and world markets, and focus on local food system resilience to achieve sustainable food adequacy

M

and the alleviation of poverty. Furthermore, using GMOs in agriculture on a large scale is

ce pt ed

understood as a policy toward agribusiness that is the most commonly used agricultural model. Importantly, some argue that in order to move towards an environmentally sustainable agricultural farming, there should be an attempt to move away from heavily industrial agriculture mainly agribusiness, which is a model of agricultural growth based on industrial techniques (194). The USDA reports that, as of 2011, 88 percent of US corn, 94 percent of soybeans, and 90 percent of cotton grown in the US are genetically modified and many of the GM traits were grown by industrial farms (195). Such dependency on resource-extractive industrial agriculture is

Ac


t

to agricultural development (193). Patents drive up costs and restrict experimentation by

unsustainable, considering the current climate, energy and water crises continuing to be aggravated and costly, short-term technical answers – including GM crops – do not tackle the complicated challenges of the agricultural sector enough and usually worsen social and environmental damages. Therefore, focuses on adaptability with the environment and

28

biodiversity, refusing monocultures and utilizing organic farming may improve local economies, decrease poverty and enhance livelihoods (194; 196). Decreased inputs are not just a saving for farmers; they offer some environmental benefits

cr ip

pesticide (active ingredient) was applied to fields between 1996 and 2010 because of insectresistant GM crops (197). Less pesticide means more beneficial insects and birds and less

us

pesticide contamination of water. Also, the current generation of GM crops is known to improve the sustainability of farming. Herbicide-tolerant crops, particularly GM Roundup Ready (RR)

an

crops, are compatible with the environmental concerns as they let farmers utilize the no-till cultivation system (198). No-till farming keeps the soil on the land and the organic matter and

M

water in the soil. It also reduces carbon-dioxide emissions from tillage. In 2010 alone, this

ce pt ed

reduction was equivalent to taking 9 million cars off the road. Moreover, insect-resistant Bt crops have markedly reduced pesticide use, making them more environmentally friendly compared to their conventional counterparts (72). GM crop varieties with modifications to cope with environmental stress such as drought and salty soils are now close to being released commercially. Monsanto has produced drought-resistant maize, which is engineered with a gene from the bacterium Bacillus subtilis. Field experiments indicate a yield increase of between 6 and 10% (199). Also, research on the development of GM salt-tolerant crops is also underway as

Ac


t

derived from the decrease use of pesticides and insecticides. Roughly, 443 million kilograms less

Li et al. (200) have reported in relation to maize. Experimental plots of the GM variety showed improved yields in comparison with conventional varieties and would allow cropping on land with soils salinized through poorly managed irrigation (200).

29

However, the drawback of both drought- and salt-tolerant crops remains in their potential to encourage the expansion of cropping into areas of remaining natural ecosystems. According to Carpenter (201), GM crops have had a net positive impact on biodiversity and sustainability over

cr ip

t

the past 15 years by increasing yields, decreasing insecticide use, increasing use of more

the use of gene technology may endanger the rich diversity of certain species, which for instance

us

is discussed when considering the introduction of Bt eggplant in the middle of the genetic center for the crop in India (202). DNA or genetic materials of GM crops in the process of gene flow

an

could be transferred to other crops and cause an unpredictable transformation (86). An argument occasionally presented in favor of the use of GM crops is the so-called beneficial trade-off

M

between low yielding extensive agricultural systems involving traditional crops, which require more land to produce the same amount of food, and high-yielding intensive systems, which

ce pt ed

require less land for agricultural use. Implementing such systems spare land and minimize the negative impact on biodiversity on noncultivated land. However, there are several arguments in favor of the extensive system, including increased sustainability and less impact from stresses caused by drought, insects, and diseases. In comparison with the fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide demands in an intensive GM crop-based system, the lower impacts have been resulted from extreme events as a result of using in situ selection of the less cultivated crops (166; 203).

Ac


environmentally friendly herbicides, and facilitating adoption of conservation tillage. However,

Opponents of GM crop technology argue that GM crops can threaten the cultivation of orphan crops, such as neglected and underutilized plant species, which today constitute the basis of much subsistence farming. They also argue that existing biodiversity in combination with plant breeding has much more to offer many of the world’s farmers and consumers, while GM crops

30

have more to offer the agro-industry and some large-scale farms, and this explains why they have received so much attention and research funding. If the development of GM crop technology is aimed at providing more secure and safe food for

cr ip

(air, water and nutrients) and maintaining the beauty of the environment (green space, parks, diversity, etc.) will seriously need to be considered in issues related to sustainability when

Conclusions

an

regard to environmental considerations (204; 65).

us

developing GM crops. This means that comprehensive risk assessment studies are needed with

M

With the world population set to reach 9 billion by 2050 (126) and increasing strains being placed on water, energy and food supplies, it would be wrong to hope that there could be a single

ce pt ed

solution to the storms that lie ahead of us (16; 205). However, it would also be inconsiderate and irresponsible not to make maximum use of the new technologies that are constantly being developed, in order to alleviate some of the worst dangers and difficulties we are facing now and in the future. Among these modern technologies, the use of GM crops may have significant potential. Although GM crops have been vastly documented to significantly increase agricultural productivity, it still depends on other factors such as irrigation, which may affect overall

Ac


t

the growing population of the world, then saving natural resources, preserving vital resources

productivity from one region to another. Hence, more research should be carried out prior to the introduction of GM technology as a tool to increase productivity in certain regions. Good nutrition depends on adequate intakes of a range of nutrients and other compounds (206). The food has to be of course available and accessible. By reducing the cost of producing GM crops,

31

biotechnology will, possibly, make its most important contribution to reducing hunger and malnutrition. However, for this to be achieved, informed government policies, a large investment in agricultural research, and other public and on-farm infrastructure will be required.

cr ip

t

Nevertheless, utilizing existing biodiversity and traditional breeding methods remain promising

products. We also emphasized the need for the private sector to partner with the public sector to

developing countries to help overcome challenges.

us

contribute to the development and delivery of biotechnology tools to smallholder farmers in

an

In order to retain long term, efficient, and economically attractive possibilities for the utilization of agro-biodiversity, it is essential to consider the threats to the exploitation of existing

M

biodiversity from agricultural industrialization, including plant breeding aimed at a few crop

ce pt ed

species, weeds, pests, and diseases, and climate change. GM technology has proven itself viable to boost agricultural productivity but its complete contribution to agricultural development and sustainability is yet to be seen. There are many challenges ahead for governments, especially in the areas of safety testing, international policy, regulation and food labeling. Further, there are noticeable differences in national labeling requirements for GM foods. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for example, does not require labeling GM foods per se, but only if the transgenic food has been substantially changed in its composition, safety, or nutritional quality

Ac


approaches if our real goal is to feed the world with affordable, nutritious and reliable plant

compared to its conventional strain (207). However, the vast majority of Americans have been calling for a referendum on the labeling of GM foods. For instance, the American Medical Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science have opposed mandatory labeling of GM foods because no scientific evidence of harm has been reported (208;

32

209). Also, biotechnology companies argue that, because GM foods contain the same nutritional components, most of these foods require no labeling (210). These GM producers resist labeling GM foods even if local consumers ask for GM foods to be labeled or stop buying these foods

cr ip

t

until they are labeled (207). For example, Monsanto supports voluntarily labeling of its products

labeling all food products, additives and flavors comprising 1% or more GM content. Japan,

us

Australia and New Zealand have also introduced mandatory labeling for all foods containing GMOs (211). Many people presently feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the

an

future and that we cannot afford to ignore such a technology that can have enormous potential benefits. We should however proceed with caution to avoid causing unintended harm to human

ce pt ed

References

M

health and the environment as a result of our enthusiasm for this new and beneficial technology.

(1) Challa, O.; Ramamurthy, V.; Venugopalan, M. V. Dynamics of Land Use in Relation to Green Revolution in India. Land Cover and Land Use, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. EOLSS-UNESCO Publ., Oxford, 2004.

(2) Pingali, P. L.; Raney, T. From the Green Revolution to the Gene Revolution: How will the Poor Fare?. ESA Working Paper No.05-09, 2005.

Ac


to highlight or market attributes that are important to its customers. The EU, by contrast, requires

(3) Bazuin, S.; Azadi, H.; Witlox, F. Application of GM crops in Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons learned from Green Revolution. Journal of Biotechnology Advances 2011, 29 (6), 908-912.

33

(4) Basu, P.; Scholten, B. A. Technological and social dimensions of the Green Revolution: Connecting pasts and futures. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2012, 10(2), 109-116.

cr ip

t

(5) Pingali, P. L.; Heisey, P. W. Cereal-Crop Productivity in Developing Countries: Past Trends

Policy. IFPRI & Johns Hopkins University. Press: Washington, 2001.

14-27.

us

(6) Fuglie, K.; Nin-Pratt, A. A Changing Global Harvest. Global Food Policy Report, Chapter 2: 2012.

Available

on:

an

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/gfpr2012_ch02.pdf (accessed 23 July 2014). (7) Delude, C. W.; Mirvis, K. Genetically modified food crops. Your World 2000, 10, 1.

M

(8) Kuyek, D. Genetically Modified Crops in Africa: Implications for Small Farmers. Genetic Resources Action International 2002, 1-20. Available on: www.grain.org (accessed 25 June

ce pt ed

2014).

(9) Chopra, P.; Kamma, A. Genetically Modified Crops in India. 2005. Available on: http://paraschopra.com/publications/gm.pdf (accessed 10 April 2014). (10) Scoones, I.; Glove, D. Africa’s biotechnology battle. Nature 2009, 13(460). (11) Qaim, M.; Zilberman, D. Yield effect of genetically modified crops in development countries. Science 2009, 299(5608), 900-902.

Ac


and Future Prospects. In: Alston, J.M., Pardey, P.G. and Taylor, M. eds. Agricultural Science

(12) Azadi, H.; Ho, P. Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: A review of options for food security. Biotechnology Advances 2010, 28(1), 160- 168.

(13) Speiser, B.; Stolze, M.; Oehen, B.; Gessler, C, P.; Weibel, F.; Bravin, E.; Kilchenmann, A.; Widmer, A.; Charles, R.; Lang, A.; Stamm, C.; Triloff, P.; Tamm, L.; Sustainability assessment

34

of GM crops in a Swiss agricultural context. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 2013, 33(1), 21-61. (14) Juma, C. The New Harvest—Agricultural Innovations in Africa. Press: Oxford University,

t cr ip

(15) FAO. Agricultural Biotechnologies in Developing Countries: Options and Opportunities in

us

Crops, Forestry, Livestock, Fisheries and Agro-industry to Face the Challenges of Food Insecurity and Climate Change (ABDC-10). FAO International Technical Conference,

an

Guadalajara, Mexico, 2010.

(16) Azadi, H.; Schoonbeek, S.; Mahmoudi, H.; Derudder, B.; De Maeyer, P.; Witlox, F. Organic

Environment 2011, 144(1), 92– 94.

M

agriculture and sustainable food production system: Main potentials. Agriculture, Ecosystems &

ce pt ed

(17) IFAD. Food Prices: Smallholder Farmers Can Be Part of the Solution. 2012. Available on: http://www.ifad.org/operations/food/farmer.htm (accessed 17 April 2014). (18) World Bank. Agricultural Growth for the Poor: An Agenda for Development. Washington D.C, 2005; 29-31.

(19) Briney, A. Green Revolution: History and Overview of the Green Revolution. 2008.

Ac


2011; 296 pp.

Available on: http://geography.about.com/od /globalproblemsandissues/a/greenrevolution.htm (accessed 6 January 2014).

35

(20) Thurlow, J.; Benin, S.; Diao, X.; Kalinda, H.; Kalinda, T.

Agricultural Growth and

Investment Options for Poverty Reduction in Zambia. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. Discussion Paper 00791, 2008; 2-26.

cr ip

Civilizations. New York, Random House, 2007; 244 pp.

(22) Oasa, E. K. The Political Economy of International Agricultural Research in Glass. In

us

Glaeser, Bernhard. The Green Revolution revisited: critique and alternatives. Allen & Unwin,

an

1987; 13–55. ISBN 0-04-630014-7.

(23) International Food Policy Research Institute. Green Revolution: Curse or Blessing.

Poverty.

2002.

Available

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/ib/ib11.pdf

ce pt ed

(accessed 23 July 2014).

on:

M

International Food Policy Research Institute: Sustainable Options for Ending Hunger and

(24)

Rosset,

P.

Lessons

from

the

Green

Revolution.

2000.

Available

on:

www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html (accessed 3 January 2014). (25) Timmer, P. C. Agriculture and Pro-Poor Growth: An Asian Perspective. Center of Global Development. Working Paper Number 63, 2005, 18-21.

Ac


t

(21) Ponting, C. A New Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great

(26) Johnson, D. G.; Mellor, J. W. The role of agriculture in economic development. American Economic Review 1961, 51(4), 566–593. (27) Gordon, R.; Conway, E. B. After the Green Revolution: Sustainable Agriculture for Development. Earthscan Publications Ltd: London. 1990.

36

(28) Gollin, D.; Parente, S.; Rogerson, R. The role of agriculture in development. American Economic Review 2002, 92(2), 160–164. (29) Timmer, C. P. Agriculture and economic development. In Handbook of agricultural

cr ip

(30) Diao, X.; Hazell, P.; Resnick, D.; Thurlow, J. The Role of Agriculture in Development,

us

Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa. Research report, No.153. International Food Policy Research Institute 2007. DOI: 10.2499/9780896291614RR153 WiseGEEK.

Clear

answers

for

common

questions.

an

(31)

2012.

Available

on:

M

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-agricultural-development.htm (accessed 13 March 2014). (32) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. What We Do. Agricultural Development Strategy 2011,

Available

ce pt ed

Overview.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agriculturaldevelopment/Pages/overview.aspx

on: (accessed

18

February 2014).

(33) Caritas International, the Catholic relief agency. Questions Raised on High-Tech Foods. Paper presented at conference on “Feeding the World: The Moral Imperative of Biotechnology”, Gregorian University, Rome, 24 September 2004.

Ac


t

economics, Gardner, B.; Rausser, G, Eds., 2, 1893–1943. Philadelphia: Elsevier. 2002.

(34) Chandra, Goel, M. Global Summit: Green Revolution-II, Growth Engine for Transformation. 2011.

Available on: http://www.assocham.org/agriculture/summit-green-

rev2/presentations/gr2_MC_Goel.pdf (accessed 13 May 2014).

37

(35) India Resource Center. Green Revolution- Inequitable and Inadequate. 2003. Available on: http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2003/4103.html (accessed 22 November 2013). (36)

IFAD.

Development

effectiveness.

2012.

Available

t

cr ip

(37) Hughes, H. Agricultural development, growth and equity: 40 years of experience. Published

us

on international agricultural research, CGISR Secretariat. IFAD. Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC IV) Fourth United Nations Conference on Least

Developed

Countries

(LDC

IV),

an

the

1998.

http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/152/craw04.pdf?sequence=1

(accessed

on: 19

M

January 2014).

Available

(38) The World Bank Report. World development: Agriculture for Development. Washington

ce pt ed

DC, 2008.

(39) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gender Impact Strategy for Agricultural Development. 2008.

Available

on:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/learning/Documents/gender-impact-

strategy.pdf (accessed 2 February 2014).

(40) De Janvry, A.; Sadoulet, E. Agricultural growth and poverty reduction: Additional evidence.

Ac


http://www.ifad.org/deveffect/index.htm (accessed 18 April 2014).

on:

World Bank Research Observer 2010, 25(1), 1-20. (41) Ravallion, M.; Chen, S. China’s (Uneven) Progress Against Poverty. Journal of Development Economics 2007, 82(1), 1–42.

38

(42) Peterson, G.; Cunningham, S.; Deutsch, L.; Erickson, J.; Quinlan, A.; Raez-Luna, E.; Tinch, R.; Troell, M.; Woodbury, P.; Zens, S. The risks and benefits of genetically modified crops: A multidisciplinary

perspective.

Conservation

Ecology 2000,

4(1),

13.

Available

on:

cr ip

(43) Kang, D. S. Environmental problems of the Green Revolution with a focus on Punjab, India. In: Richard Barrett (ed.), International Dimensions of the Environmental Crisis, Westview,

us

Boulder, Colorado, 1982.

an

(44) Pimentel, D. Green revolution agriculture and chemical hazards. Science of the Total Environment 1996, 188, 86-98.

M

(45) Abhilash, P. C.; Singh, N. Pesticide use and application: An Indian scenario. Journal of

ce pt ed

Hazardous Materials 2009, 165(1), 1-12.

(46) Hole, F. Agricultural sustainability in the semi-arid Near East. Climate of the Past 2007, 3(2), 193–203. Available on: www.clim-past.net/3/193/2007/ (accessed 25 January 2014). (47) USAID (United States Agency International Development). Agricultural Biotechnology for Development. Washington, DC 20523, 2009. Available on: http://www.usaid.gov/our _work/pdfs/2009/usaid_biotech_broc_eng_090407.pdf

Ac


t

http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art13 (accessed 16 November 2013).

(48) Agriculture and Natural Resources Team. Agricultural Sustainability. Department for International Development (DFID), UK, 2004; 5-21.

39

(49) USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Legal Definition of Sustainable Agriculture.

2009.

Available

on:

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/ag_systems/in_focus/sustain_ag_if_legal.html

(accessed

25

cr ip

(50) Sakhare, M. V. Better Management Practices in Cotton: A Way to Sustainable Agriculture Practices.

Sustainable

Agriculture

2010,

1(2).

Available

on:

us

http://www.afpro.org/Newsletter_AFPRO_Issue2%20Vol1_02%20Edited%202. Pdf

an

(51) Fazio, R. A.; Farm, S.; Georgia, C.; Baide, J. M. R.; Molnar, J. J. Barriers to the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: Working Farmer and Change Agent Perspectives. Final

M

Report. The Southern Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) and the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University. 30 July 2014.

ce pt ed

(52) Sullivan, P. Applying the Principles of Sustainable Farming: Fundamentals of Sustainable Agriculture. Fayetteville, AK: ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. 2003. Available on: http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/trans.html#Composts (accessed 19 April 2014).

(53) Pretty, J.; Hine, R. Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: A summary of new

Ac


t

November 2013).

evidence.

SAFE-World

Research

Project.

2001.

Available:

www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/Research/Programmes/SAFEWexecsummfinalreport.htm (accessed 19 July 2014).

40

(54) Ghimire, A. A Review on Organic Farming for Sustainable Agriculture. Department of Agriculture Extension and Rural Sociology, Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal, 2002; 4-24.

cr ip

Service, University of Kentucky- College of Agriculture, April 2008. Available on:

us

http://www.uky.edu/Ag/CDBREC /introsheets/sustainableag.pdf (accessed 19 April 2014).

(56) Dei Congressi, P. J. F.; Kennedy, P. The growing demand for land: Risks and opportunities

an

for smallholder farmers. IFAD, Governing Council. 18-19 February 2009. Available on: http://www.ifad.org/events/gc/32/roundtables/2.pdf (accessed 18 January 2014).

M

(57) Kaundinya, R. Impact of Agri biotechnology in Agricultural Growth. CEO– Advanta India

ce pt ed

and Chairman– ABLE-AG (Association of Biotech Led Enterprises- Agriculture Group, 2010. (58) Tibbs, H. Sustainability. Deeper News 1999, 10(1). (59) Scandizzo, P. L.; Savastano, S. The adoption and diffusion of gm crops in united states: A real option approach. AgBioForum 2010, 13(2), 142-157. (60) Brookes, G.; Barfoot, P. Biotech Crops: Evidence, Outcomes and Impacts 1996- 2007.

Ac


t

(55) UK Cooperative Extension Service. Sustainable Agriculture. Cooperative Extension

Focus

on

Income,

Well

Being

and

Food

Security.

2009.

Available

on:

http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/page/23/ (accessed 20 March 2014). (61) Gomez-Barbero, M.; Rodriguez-Cerezo, E. Modeling Socio-Economic Impacts of the GM Adoption. European Commission, Seville, 2007.

41

(62) Haffman, E. W. Production, identity preservation, and labeling in a marketplace with genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods. Plant Physiology 2004, 134(1), 3–10. (63) Brookes, G.; Barfoot, P. GM crops: Global socio-economic and environmental impacts 2012.

Available

on:

t

Ltd,

cr ip

Economics

http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/page/33/global-impact-2012 (accessed 31 Jan 2014).

Economic

Growth

Center

us

(64) Evenson, R. E. GMOs: Prospects for Increased Crop Productivity in Developing Countries. Yale

University,

2003.

Available

on:

an

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp878.pdf (accessed 30 April 2014).

188(1), 11– 20.

M

(65) Ronald, P. Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security. Genetics 2011,

ce pt ed

(66) Que, Q.; Chilton, M. D. M.; de Fontes, C. M.; He, C.; Nuccio, M.; Zhu, T.; Wu, Y. S.; Chen, J.; Shi, L. Trait stacking in transgenic crops challenges and opportunities. GM Crops 2010, 1(4), 220-229.

(67) James, C. 2003. Preview: Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2003. ISAAA Briefs No. 30. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

(68) James, C. Brief 44: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012.

Ac


1996-2010. PG

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 2012. ISAAA Press release.

42

(69) Rudi, L. M.; Azadi, H.; Witlox, F. Reconcilability of socio-economic development enhancement and environmental improvement in the context of Sub-Saharan Africa. Global and Planetary Change 2012, 86, 1-10.

cr ip

survey. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 2005, 44(3), 207- 227.

countries. Current Science 2006, 91(10), 1305-1306.

us

(71) Kameswara Rao, C. The Berlin group on genetically modified crops in developing

an

(72) Vitale, J. D. ; Vognan, G. ; Ouattarra, M. ; Traore, O. The commercial application of GMO

320-332.

M

crops in Africa: Burkina Faso’s decade of experience with Bt cotton. AgBioForum 2010, 13(4),

ce pt ed

(73) Qaim, M.; Cap, E. J.; de Janvry, A. Agronomics and sustainability of transgenic cotton in Argentina. AgBioForum 2003, 6(1/2):41-47.

(74) Raney, T. Economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2006, 17, 174-178.

(75) Carpenter, J. Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM

Ac


t

(70) Qaim, M.; Matuschke I. Impacts of genetically modified crops in developing countries: A

crops. Nature Biotechnology 2010, 28(4), 319-321. (76) Brookes, G.; Barfoot, P. GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2010. PG Economics Ltd, UK. Dorchester, UK May 2012.

43

(77) Qaim, M.; Kathage, J. Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India. PNAS 2012, 109, 11652-11656. (78) Chaudhary, B. Plant domestication and resistance to Herbivory. International Journal of

cr ip

2014).

Available

on:

us

(79) Fritz, T. Bread or Trough. Animal Feed, Competition for Land and Food Security, 2013. http://fdcl-

an

berlin.de/fileadmin/fdcl/Publikationen/Brot_oder_Trog/bread_or_trough_web.pdf (accessed 14 June 2014).

ISAAA:

Ithaca,

M

(80) James, C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012. ISAAA Brief, No.44. NY.

2012.

Available

on:

ce pt ed

http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/executivesummary/ (accessed 17 July 2014).

(81) Jacobsen, S-E.; Sørensen, M.; Pedersen, S.M.; Weiner, J. Feeding the world: genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 2013, 33(4), 651-662. DOI: 10.1007/s13593-013-0138-9

Ac


t

Plant Genomics, 2013. Available on: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/572784 (accessed 9 June

(82) Herrera-Estrella, L. R. Genetically Modified Crops and Developing Countries. Plant

Physiology 2000, 124(3), 923-926 (83) Morin, X. K. Genetically modified food from crops: progress, pawns, and possibilities. Anal Bioanal Chem 2008, 392(3), 333–340.

44

(84) Ruse, M.; Castle, D. Genetically modified foods: debating biotechnology. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY. 2002. (85) Vidal, J. GM crops promote superweeds, food insecurity and pesticides, say NGOs. 19

t cr ip

(86) Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The use of genetically modified crops in developing

us

countries. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2004.

(87) Aldred J. Worldwide increase in GM crops, report shows. Guardian News and Media 2012

Available

an

Limited,

on:

2014).

M

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/gmcrops.food/print (accessed 25 February

ce pt ed

(88) Commission Green Biotechnology. Genetically Modified Insect Resistant Crops with Regard to Developing Countries. InterAcademy Panel Initiative on Genetically Modified Organisms, Berlin, 2006.

(89) Dale, P. J. Public Concerns over transgenic crops. Genome Research 1999, 9(3), 1159-1162. (90) Garza, C.; Stover, P. General Introduction: the role of science in identifying common

Ac


October 2011. Guardian.co.uk.

ground in the debate on genetic modification of foods. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2003, 14(5), 182- 190.

45

(91) Vollmer, E.; Creamer, N.; Mueller, P. Sustainable Agriculture and Transgenic Crops. 2007. Available on: http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/comstock/langure/ethics/Vollmer.pdf

(accessed 1

June 2014).

cr ip

service for the acquisition of agri-biotech application, 2008. Available on: http://www.isaaa.org

us

(accessed 25 April 2014).

(93) Novy, A.; Ledermann, S.; Pray, C.; Nagarajan, L. Balancing Agricultural Development

an

Resources: Are GM and Organic Agriculture in Opposition in Africa?AgBioForum 2011, 14(3), 142-157.

Documented

Benefits

M

(94) ISAAA. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. of

GM

Crops,

2006.

Available

on:

ce pt ed

http://isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/5/default.asp (accessed 13 May 2014). (95) Zhao, J. H.; Ho, P.; Azadi H. Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China. Environnemental Monitoring Assessment 2011, 173(1-4), 985-994.

(96) Conway, G. The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st Century, Ithaca, N.Y.:

Ac


t

(92) James, C. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2008 (brief 39). International

Cornell University Press. 1998. (97) Srinivasan, C. S.; Thirtle, C. Potential economic impacts of terminator technologies: policy implications for developing countries. Environ Develop Econ 2003, 8, 187-205.

46

(98) Wu, F.; Butz, W. F. The Future of Genetically Modified Crops, Lessons from the Green Revolution. Rand Publishing. 2004. (99) Pray, C. E.; Huang, J.; Hu, R.; Rozelle, S. Five years of Bt cotton in China—The benefits

t cr ip

(100) Mal, P.; Manjunatha A.V.; Bauer, S.; Ahmed, M. N. Technical Efficiency and

us

Environmental Impact of Bt Cotton and Non-Bt Cotton in North India. AgBioForum 2011, 14(3), 164-170.

an

(101) Qaim, M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition,

M

and health. New Biotechnology 2010, 27(5), 552-557.

(102) Hultman, N.; Sierra, K.; Shapiro, A. Innovation and Technology for Green Growth. In Old

ce pt ed

Problems, New Solutions: Harnessing Technology and Innovation in the Fight Against Global Poverty. The 2012 Brookings Blum Roundtable Policy Briefs, Brookings Institution, pp, 31-40. 2012.

Available

on:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2012/10/blum%20roundtable/10%20gr een%20growth%20hultman%20sierra.pdf (accessed 29 July 2014). (103) Smyth, S. J.; McDonald, J.; Falck-Zeped, J. Investment, regulation, and uncertainty

Ac


continue. The Plant Journal 2002, 31, 423-430.

Managing new plant breeding techniques. GM Crops & Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain 2014, 5(1), 44–57.

47

(104) Fernandez-Cornejo, J.; Daberkow, S.; McBride, W. D. Decomposing the size effect on the adoption of innovations: agrobiotechnology and precision farming. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. AgBioForum 2001, 4(2), 124-136.

cr ip

crop adoption. Plant Biotechnology Journal 2011, 9(9), 945-957.

us

(106) Jackson, S. A. The nexus: where science meets society. Science 2005, 310, 1634-1639.

(107) Wesseler, J.; Aerni, P. Sustainability and the Bioeconomy. AgBioForum 2011, 14(3), 94-

an

96.

M

(108) Fedoroff, N. V. Egineering food for all. Opinion Page. The New York Times. 2011. (109) Fischer, A. R. Farming Systems of Australia: Exploiting the Synergy between Genetic

ce pt ed

Improvement and Agronomy. Chapter 2: Farming Systems of Australia. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the

Netherlands,

2009;

23-54.

Available

on:

http://www2.unine.ch/repository/default/content/sites/spsw/files/shared/SPSW/Documents/Public ation_speakers_Summer_school/Fischer/4.pdf (accessed 25 May 2014). (110) Goffman, E. Land use & Agriculture. India and Path to Environmental Sustainability,

Ac


t

(105) Areal, F. J.; Riesgo, L.; Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. Attitudes of European farmers towards GM

ProQuest, February 2008. Available on: http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/india/review4.php

(accessed 2 June 2014). (111) Qaim, M. The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics 2009, 1, 665– 694.

48

(112) FAO. Sustainable Agricultural Resources Development, 2011. Available on: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Nations-Related-Agencies/The-Food-andAgriculture-Organization-of-the-United-Nations-FAO-SUSTAINABLE-AGRICULTURAL-

cr ip

(113) Baik, B. E.; Ullrich, S. Barley for food: Characteristics, improvement, and renewed

us

interest. Journal of Cereal Science 2008, 48(2), 233-242.

(114) Wikipedia. Barley, 16 November 2011. Available on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barley

an

(accessed 15 June 2014).

(115) Wilm K. H. Genetic Modification of Food. Our Food, 2011. Available on:

M

http://www.ourfood.com/Genetic_Modification_Food.html (accessed 14 May 2014). (116) Ghasemi, S.; Karami, E.; Azadi, H. Knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions of

ce pt ed

agricultural professionals towards GM foods: A case study in Southwest Iran. Science and Engineering Ethics 2013, 19(3), 1201-1227.

(117) Othmen, Y.; Bhassu, S. The Role of Biotechnology in sustainable agriculture for the future, 2011. Available on: http://ensearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Biotechnology-andsustainable-agriculture-final.pdf (accessed 17 December 2013).

Ac


t

RESOURCES-DEVELOPMENT.html (accessed 19 June 2014).

(118) Bigler, F.; Sanvido, O.; Romeis, J. Can genetically modified plants play a role in sustainable crop protection?. Report: Zürich, Switzerland: Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research

Station

ART.

Retrieved

from,

2008.

http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/crp/42582878.pdf (accessed 12 June 2014).

49

Available

on:

(119) Bindel, E. Explaining biotechnology use around the world: Sustainable governance or other explanations?. Institute for Globalization and Sustainable Development 2002, 5(2), 3-9. (120) Zarrilli, S. Genetically Modified Organisms: A New Dilemma for Africa. The African

cr ip

March 2014).

us

(121) Nottingham, S. Eat your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food is Entering Our Diet. Press: St Martins, 2003.

an

(122) Prakash, S. C. The Genetically Modified Crop Debate in the Context of Agricultural Evolution The Genetically Modified Crop Debate in the Context of Agricultural Evolution. Plant

ce pt ed

(accessed 16 July 2014).

M

physiology 2001, 126(1), 8-15. Available on: http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/126/1/8.full

(123) Wolt, D. J. Understanding Risk and Safety Assessment for Genetically Modified Plants. Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products Iowa State University, 2008. (124) Martinez-Poveda, A., Molla-Bauza, M. B., del Campo Gomis, F. J., & Martinez, L. M. C. Consumer-perceived risk model for the introduction of genetically modified food in Spain. Food Policy, 2009, 34(6), 519-528.

Ac


t

Technology Development Forum, 2005. Available on: http://www.atdforum.org (accessed 10

(125) Moon, W. & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2001). Public perceptions and willingness-to-pay a

premium for non-GM Foods in the US and UK. AgBioForum, 2001, 4(3–4), 221–231.

50

(126) Giger, E.; Prem, R.; Leen, M. Increase of agricultural production based on genetically modified food to meet population growth demands. School of Doctoral Studies (European Union) Journal 2009, 1, 98-124.

cr ip

Ethical Issues of the 21st Century. Charlottesville: Philosophy Documentation Center Press.

us

2004.

(128) Nordlee, J. A.; Taylor, S. L.; Townsend, J. A.; Thomas, L. A.; Bush, R. K. Identification of

an

a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. N. Engl. J. Med. 1996, 334, 726–728. (129) Prescott, V. E.; Campbell, P. M.; Moore, A.; Mattes, J.; Rothenberg, M. E.; Foster, P. S.;

M

Higgins, T. J. V.; Hogan, S. P. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry 2005.

ce pt ed

53, 9023- 9030.

(130) Guimaraes, V.; Drumare, M-F.; Lereclus, D.; Gohar, M.; Lamourette, P.; Nevers, M. C.; Vaisanen-Tunkelrott, M-L.; Bernard, H.; Guillon, B.; Créminon, C.; Wal, J-M.; Adel-Patient, K. In vitro digestion of Cry1Ab proteins and analysis of the impact on their immunoreactivity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2010, 58, 3222-3231.

Ac


t

(127) Kaplan, D. M. What’s wrong with genetically modified food? In Frederick Adams, ed.

(131) Yum, H. Y.; Lee, S. Y.; Lee, K. E.; Sohn, M. H.; Kim, K. E. Genetically modified and wild soybeans: An immunologic comparison. Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 2005, 26, 210-

216.

51

(132) Alexander, C. E.; Mellor, T. V. Determinants of corn rootworm resistant corn adoption in Indiana.

AgBioForum

2005,

8(4),

197-204.

Available

on:

http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n4/v8n4a01-alexander.html (accessed 29 June 2014).

cr ip

January

2006.

Available

on:

http://www.gmocompass.org/eng/news/stories/190.western_corn_rootworm_its_way_european_

us

maize_fields.html (accessed 19 July 2014).

an

(134) Malatesta, M.; Biggiogera, M.; Manuali, E.; Rocchi, MBL.; Baldelli, B.; Gazzanelli, G. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Eur J

M

Histochem 2003, 47, 385-88.

(135) Tudisco, R.; Lombardi, P.; Bovera, F.; D’Angelo, D.; Cutrignelli, M.I.; Mastellone, V.;

ce pt ed

Terzi, V.; Avallone, L.; Infascelli, F. Genetically modified soybean in rabbit feeding: detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis. Animal Science 2006, 82, 193–199.

(136) Netherwood, T.; Martín-Orúe, S.M.; O'Donnell, A.G.; Gockling, S.; Graham, J.; Mathers, J.C.; Gilbert, H.J. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal

Ac


t

(133) GMO Compass. The Western Corn Rootworm: On its Way to European Maize Fields. 4

tract. Nature Biotechnology 2004, 22, 204-209. (137) Estabillo, A.V. Farmer's group urges ban on planting Bt corn; says it could be cause of

illnesses,

Mindanews,

19th

October

2004.

Available

http://www.mindanews.com/2004/10/19nws-btcorn.html (accessed 30 July 2014).

52

on:

(138) Food Standards Agency. Extremely low risk of GM transfer. 2002. Available on: http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2002/jul/gm_reports (accessed 10 July 2014). (139) Scutt, C. P.; E.I.; Zubko.; Meyer, P. Techniques for the removal of marker genes from

t cr ip

(140) Domingo J. L. Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published

us

Literature. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2007, 47, 721–733.

(141) Bakshi, A. Potential adverse health effects of genetically modified crops. Journal of

an

Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 2003, 6, 211–225,

M

(142) Pusztai, A.; Bardocz, S.; Ewen, S. W. B. Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. In:Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed) D’Mello JPF CAB International,

ce pt ed

Wallingford Oxon, UK, pp 347–372. 2003.

(143) Fontes, E. M. G.; Pires, C. S. S.; Sujit, E. R.; Panizzi, A. R. The Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Crops Resistant to Insects. Neotropical Entomology 2002, 31(4), 497-513. (144) Snow, D.; Andow, A.; Gepts, P.; Hallerman, E. M.; Power5, A.; Tiedj, J. M.; Wolfenbarger, L. L. Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: Current status and

Ac


transgenic plants. Biochimie 2002, 84, 1119-1126.

recommendations. Ecological Applications 2005, 15, 377-404.

(145) Ritz, E. Genetically Modified Crops. FAO. April 10 – 13, 2014. Available on: http://numun.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FAO-Topic-B-Genetically-ModifiedCrops.pdf (accessed 30 July 2014).

53

(146) Prasifka, P. L.; Hellmich, R. L.; Prasifka, J. R.; Lewis, L. C. Effects of Cry1Ab-expressing corn anthers on the movement of monarch butterfly larvae. Environ Entomolology 2007, 36, 228-33.

cr ip

Russo, J. M.; Anderson, P. L. Effects on monarch butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) after continuous exposure to Cry1Ab expressing corn during anthesis. Environmental Entomology

us

2004, 33, 1116-1125.

an

(148) Binimelis, R.; Pengue , W.; Monterroso , I. Transgenic treadmill”: Responses to the emergence and spread of glyphosateresistant johnsongrass in Argentina. Geoforum 2009, 40,

M

623–633.

(149) Nandula, V. K.; Reddy, K. N.; Duke, S. O.; Poston, D. H. Glyphosate-resistant weeds:

ce pt ed

current status and future outlook. Outlooks on Pest Management August 2005, 183-187. (150) Johnson, W.G.; Owen, M. D. K.; Kruger, G. R.; Young, B. G.; Shaw, D. R.; Wilson, R. G.; Wilcut, J. W.; Jordan, D. L.; Weller, S. C. US farmer awareness of glyphosate-resistant weeds and resistance management strategies. Weed Technology 2009, 23, 308–312. (151) Duke, S. O. Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest

Ac


t

(147) Dively, G. P.; Rose, R.; Sears, M. K.; Hellmich, R. L.; Stanley-Horn, D. E.; Calvin, D. D.;

Management Science 2005, 61, 211–218.

(152)

Monsanto.

Management

guide

for

marestail.

2008.

Available

on:

http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Documents/Marestail.pdf (accessed 25 July 2014).

54

(153) Domingo J. L. Health risks of GM foods: many opinions but few data. Science 2000, 288, 1748–1749. (154) Pryme, I. F.; Lembcke, R. In vivo studies on possible health consequences of genetically

cr ip

plant materials. Nutr. Health 2003, 17, 1–8.

us

(155) Patel, R., Torres, R. J., and Rosset, P. Genetic engineering in agriculture and corporate engineering in public debate: risk, public relations, and public debate over genetically modified

an

crops. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 2005.11, 428–436.

(156) Zdziarski, I M.; Edwards, J.W.; Carman, J.A.; Haynes, J. I. GM crops and the rat digestive

M

tract: A critical review. Environment International 2014, 73, 423-433.

ce pt ed

(157) Weil J. H. Are genetically modified plants useful and safe? IUBMB Life 2005, 57, 311– 314.

(158) Pusztai, A.; Bardocz, S. GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. In: Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals. Mosenthin, R.;Zentek, J.;Żebrowska, T. eds.; Vol 4. pp. 513540. 2006.

Ac


t

modified food and feed–with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically modified

(159) Wesseler, J.; Scatasta, S.; Fall, El H. Chapter 7 The Environmental Benefits and Costs of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops. In Colin A. Carter, GianCarlo Moschini, Ian Sheldon (ed.) Genetically Modified Food and Global Welfare (Frontiers of Economics and Globalization, Vol. 10, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.173-199. 2011.

55

(160) Fredrickson D. S. A History of the Recombinant DNA Guidelines in the United States; Press: In Pergamon, 1979; 151–156. Available on: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/FF/B/B/K/C/_ /ffbbkc.pdf

cr ip

DNA research. National Institute of Health, USA, Public Health Report 1983, 98, 361-368.

risk

assessment. Environmental

Sciences

us

(162) Meyer, H. Systemic risks of genetically modified crops: the need for new approaches to Europe

2011,

23(7),

1-11.

Available

on:

an

http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/7 (accessed 13 June 2014).

(163) ISF (International Seed Federation). Agriculture under pressure, 2011. Available on:

M

http://www.worldseed.org/isf/home.html (accessed 07 March 2014). (164) Bakshi, S.; Dewan, D. Status of Transgenic Cereal Crops: A Review. Clon Transgen,

ce pt ed

2013, 3(119), 2.

(165) Schiøler, E.; Pinstrup-Andersen, P. Seeds of Contention. Oxford University. Press: Oxford, 2009; 164 pp.

(166) Carpenter, J. E. Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops. Nature Biotechnology 2010, 28(4), 319–321.

Ac


t

(161) Talbot, B. Development of the National Institutes of Health guidelines for recombinant

(167) Rech, E. L.; Lopes, M. R. Insights into Brazilian agricultural structure and sustainable intensification of food production. Food and Energy Security 2013, 1(2), 77-80.

56

(168) Fedoroff, N. V. The past, present and future of crop genetic modification. New Biotechnology 2010, 27(5), 461-465. (169) Wang, S.; Just, D. R.; Pinstrup-Andersen, P.

Bt-cotton and secondary pests. Int J

t cr ip

(170) Wang, Z. J.; Lin, H.; Huang, J.; Hu, R.; Rozelle, S.; Pray, C. Bt cotton in China: are

us

secondary insect infestations offsetting the benefits in farmer fields? Agr Sci China 2009, 8(1), 83–90.

an

(171) Gassmann, A. J.; Petzold-Maxwell, J. L.; Keweshan, R.; Dunbar, M. W. Field-evolved

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022629

M

resistance to Bt maize by western corn rootworm. PLoS One 2011, 6(7), 622-629.

ce pt ed

(172) Borlaug, N. E. Ending world hunger. The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology 2000, 124(2), 487–490. (173) Trewavas, A. GM food is the best option we have. In: Pence G (ed) The ethics of food, a reader for the twenty-first century. Rowman, Lanham, 2002; 148–155. (174) Gruère, G. P.; Sun Y. Measuring the contribution of Bt cotton adoption to India’s cotton

Ac


Biotechnol 2008, 10, 113–120

yields leap. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Discussion Paper, 1170, 2012. (175) Hofs, J-L.; Berti, F. Les cotonniers (Gossypium hirsutum L.) génétiquement modifi és, Bt : quel avenir pour la petite agriculture familiale en Afrique francophone ? Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ 2006, 10(4), 335–343.

57

(176) Gurian-Sherman, D. Failure to yield—evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009; 51. (177) Fernandez-Cornejo, J.; McBride, W. D. Adoption of bioengineered Crops, USDA-

cr ip

Available on: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/ (accessed 30 July 2014).

us

(178) Bullock, David, and Elisavet I. Nitsi. GMO adoption and private cots savings: GR Soybeans and Bt Corn. In Nelson, G. C. GMOs in agriculture: economics and politics. Urbana,

an

USA, Academic Press, 21-38. 2001.

(179) Benbrook, C. Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready

M

Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998. Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper, Number 1, 13 Jul 1999. Available on: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/RRS-Yield-

ce pt ed

Drag.htm (accessed 28 July 2014).

(180) Elmore, R. W.; Roeth, F. W.; Nelson, L. A.; Shapiro, C. A.; Klein, R. N.; Knezevic, S. Z. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal 2001, 93, 408-412.

(181) Ma, B. L.; Subedi, K.D. Development, yield, grain moisture and nitrogen uptake of Bt corn

Ac


t

Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economics Report 810: Washington DC, USA. 2002.

hybrids and their conventional near-isolines. Field Crops Research 2005, 93, 199-211. (182) Jain, H. K. Green Revolution: History, Impact and Future. Press: Studium press LLC, Housten, 2010.

58

(183) Pray, C. E.; Nagarajan, L. Role of Biotechnology in Stimulating Agribusiness R&D Investment in India. AgBioForum 2013, 16(2), 104-111. (184) Vidal, J. GM Crops Promote Superweeds, Food Insecurity and Pesticides, say NGOs.

t cr ip

(185) Charles, D. Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted. Available on:

us

http://www.npr.org/ (accessed 25 June 2014).

(186) Zilberman, D.; Sexton, S. E.; Marra, M.; Fernandez-Cornejo, J. The Economic Impact of

an

Genetically Engineered Crops. The Choices magazine, Agricultural and Applied Economics

M

Association, 7/25/2014.

(187) Ahmed, I. Killer seeds: the devastating impacts of Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds

ce pt ed

in India. Global Research. Global Research: Center for Research on Globalization, 2012 . Available on: http://www.globalresearch.ca/killer-seeds-the-devastating-impacts-of-monsanto-sgenetically-modified-seeds-in-india/28629 (accessed 14 June 2014). (188) Bennett, R.; Buthelezi, T. J.; Ismael, Y.; Morse, S. Bt cotton, pesticides, labour and health - A case study of smallholder farmers in the Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa. Outlook on Agriculture 2003, 32(2), 123–128.

Ac


Guardian.co.uk, 19 October 2011.

(189) Brookes, G.; Barfoot, P. GM Crops: Global Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts 1996- 2007. ©PG Economic Ltd, 2009.

59

(190) Azadi, H.; Talsma, N.; Ho, P.; Zarafshani, K. GM crops in Ethiopia: A realistic way to increase agricultural performance? Trends in Biotechnology 2011, 29(1), 6-8. (191) Jacobsen, S. E.; Sørensen, M.; Pedersen, S. M.; Weiner, J. Feeding the world: genetically

cr ip

33(4), 651-662.

(192) McMichael, P.; Schneider, M. Food security politics and the

us

1.

Millennium Development Goals. Third World Quarterly 2011, 13(1), 119-139.

an

(193) IAASTD. Agriculture at a crossroads. International Assessment of Agricultural

M

Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Island Press, 2009; 250 pp. (194) Ramjoue, C. A review of regulatory issues raised by genetically modified organisms in

ce pt ed

agriculture. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2008, 3(096), 1-10. doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20083096 (195) USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S.: Extent of adoption. 2012. Available on: http://www.ers.usda.gov/dataproducts/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the us/documentation.aspx#.U9jlKOOSwv0 (accessed 30 July 2014).

Ac


t

modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity. Agronomy for sustainable development 2013,

(196) Ishii-Eitman, M.; Ching, L. L. The IAASTD review. Development 2008, 51(4), 570-573. (197) James, C. The contribution of biotech crops to food, feed and fibre security and sustainability. Linking Science to Society, 2010.

60

(198) Fagan, J.; Antoniou, M.; Robinson, C. GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops and foods (2nd edition). Earth Open Source: London. Great Britain. 2014. Available on:

cr ip

(199) Gilbert, N. GM crops escape into the American wild. Nature News, 6 August 2010.

us

doi:10.1038/news.2010.393

(200) Li, B.; Li, N.; Duan, X.; Wei, A.; Yang, A.; Zhang, J. Generation of marker-free transgenic

Biotechnology 2010, 145(2), 206-213.

an

maize with improved salt tolerance using the FLP/FRT recombination system. Journal of

M

(201) Carpenter, J. E. Impacts of GE crops on biodiversity. ISB News Report. June 2011, p4.

ce pt ed

(202) Kolady, D. E.; Lesser, W. Genetically-engineered crops and their effects on varietal diversity: A case of Bt eggplant in India. Agriculture and Human Values 2012, 29(1), 3–15. (203) IFOAM. Organic agriculture—a guide to climate change and food security, 2009. Available

on:

http://www.nrccte.org/sites/default/files/publication-

files/nrccte_roi_guidebook_web.pdf (accessed 25 June 2014). (204) Wickson, F. Australia’s Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops: Are We Risking

Ac


t

www.earthopensource.org (accessed 19 July 2014).

Sustainability? Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 2004, 2(1): 36-47. (205) Schoonbeek, S.; Azadi, H.; Mahmoudi, H.; Derudder, B.; De Maeyer, P.; Witlox, F. Organic agriculture and undernourishment in developing countries: Main potentials and challenges. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2013, 53(9), 917-928.

61

(206) Bouis, H.; E, Chassy B. M.; Ochanda J. O. Genetically modified food crops and their contribution to human nutrition and food quality. Trends Food Science Technology 2003, 14(5), 191–209.

cr ip

Available on: http://law.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified.pdf (accessed 25

us

July 2014).

(208) American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Labeling

of

Bioengineered

Foods.

CSAPH

Report

2-A-12.

an

Health:

http://factsaboutgmos.org/sites/default/files/AMA%20Report.pdf(accessed 18 July 2014).

M

(209) American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers.

ce pt ed

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf (accessed 20 July 2014).

(210) Hamilton, N. Legal Issues Shaping Society's Acceptance of Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 2001, 6(1), 81-117. (211) Nielsen, C. P.; Anderson, K. Genetically Modified Foods, Trade, and Developing

Ac


t

(207) Kruft, D. Impacts of Genetically-Modified Crops and Seeds on Farmers. November 2001.

Countries:

Is

Golden

Rice

Special?

AgBioWorld.

2011.

Available

on:

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/goldenrice/specialgoldrice.html (accessed 25 July 2014).

62

ce pt ed

Ac

t

cr ip

us

an

M


Figure 1. 18 biotech mega-countries growing 50,000 hectares, or more, of biotech crops. Source:

(68)

63

Figure 2. Global area of biotech crops, 1996 to 2012: Industrial and developing countries

cr ip us an M ce pt ed Ac


t

(million hectares). Source: (68)

64

ce pt ed

Ac

t

cr ip

us

an

M


Figure 3. Productivity requirement of major cereal crops by 2050. Source: (164)

65