QIf consumer opposition to GMO products is so strong, why not stick to making Non-GMO seeds better through breeding? A June 2013 study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability entitled "Sustainability and innovation in staple c

If consumer opposition to GMO products is so strong, why not stick to making Non-GMO seeds better through breeding? A June 2013 study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability entitled "Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest" concluded that "despite the claims that GM might be needed to feed the world, we found no yield benefit when the United States was compared to W. Europe and other economically developed countries of the same latitude which do not grow GM crops. We found no benefit from the traits either." They also concluded that "GM crops have maintained or increased US pesticide use relative to equally advanced competitors". It seems that the European countries are having greater success with lowered pesticide use and yields without transgenic crops.

AExpert Answer

While the yield benefits of currently commercialized GM crops in developed countries such as the U.S. may not be large, surveys of farmers in both developed and developing countries show that GM crop farmers in developing countries have achieved much greater yield increases.  Currently commercialized technologies are intended to improve pest management and therefore reduce or eliminate losses for insect damage or weed competition.  In developed countries, these technologies have substituted for other pest-management practices and have been adopted for reasons other than yield improvement, such as reduced costs and management time.  In developing countries, these same technologies can improve yields substantially if farmers lack access to effective conventional pest-management tools, such as pesticides. 

 

With respect to the referenced paper, I believe the authors' “conclusions” are better characterized as assertions.  Regarding the impacts of GM crops on both yields and pesticide use, the study makes gross comparisons between yields and pesticide use in North America and Western Europe, drawing “conclusions” about the impact of GM crops, whereas of course there are many other factors that influence yields and pesticide use, such as climate, soils, topography, farming system and government subsidies.

 

For corn, yields in the U.S. and Western Europe are comparable.  The impact of currently commercialized insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant crops in the U.S. has been to reduce the reliance on conventional insecticides, to allow growers to use more environmentally friendly herbicides and to reduce costs, and in some years increase yields, though not dramatically.  European growers are able to achieve high yields using conventional pest-management practices, such as pesticides and tillage.  For example, European maize growers use herbicides on approximately 90 percent of maize acreage, use tillage on over 70 percent, and continue to use broad-spectrum insecticides to control the most troublesome insect pests [M. Meissle et al., 2010, “Pests, pesticides use and alternative options in European maize production: current status and future prospects,” Journal of Applied Entomology, vol. 134, pp. 357-375].

 

For rapeseed, yields in Canada have historically been much lower than in Western Europe.  There are many differences between the production systems of Canada and Western Europe.  Rapeseed production in Western Europe is best characterized as an intensive, high-input, high-yield system, encouraged by a favorable climate and government subsidies, while Canadian production uses fewer inputs and is lower yielding.  Further, European growers plant mostly oilseed rape, which is genetically distinct from inherently lower-yielding canola that is grown in Canada.  Similarly for wheat, yields in the U.S. have historically been much lower than in Western Europe, due to the more intensive, high-input system used by wheat farmers in Europe.

 

Regarding pesticide use, the authors’ conclusions are based on comparing trends in overall pesticide use, for all crops combined, in the U.S. and various Western European countries.  The data are from FAO, which reports annual estimates of pesticide use in metric tons per 1000 hectares by country.  Because the FAO data present only an aggregated estimate of pesticide use for all crops produced in a country, it would be extremely difficult to draw any conclusions based on these data alone.  Further, despite the assertion by the authors that pesticide use reductions were observed in Switzerland and Germany (with no data shown in the paper), current FAO data show overall pesticide use increasing in both countries between 1995 and 2010.  Perhaps most importantly, though, comparing trends in the aggregate amount of pesticides used is problematic, as pesticides are applied at vastly different rates and are inherently different in their potential environmental and human health impacts.

 

In the future, it is likely that developing countries will continue to have the most to gain from GM crops that are currently under development, such as nitrogen use efficiency, drought and salt tolerance and nutritional quality.  Each of these technologies offers solutions to production or nutritional constraints that are more acute in developing countries than in the U.S. and Western Europe.

Posted on January 31, 2018
Thank you for your question. There are various aspects of your question. I assume your question refers to the use of Agrobacterium rhizogenes by scientists to intentionally transfer genes from the bacterium to plants. Infection and DNA transfer from this bacterium occurs in nature all the time to cause disease. Such transformed plants are not classified as GMOs since transfer occurred naturally. If this is done by scientists then it would be classified as a GMO. Rules and... Read More
Answer:
Posted on March 1, 2018
I’m a Monsanto scientist who has more than 20 years of experience with genetic modification of plants. I will try to answer your question, even though I don’t ever do experiments on animals, certainly not on humans, of course! Can humans be genetically modified…but a much bigger question is should humans be genetically modified? There are two ways to think about genetic modification of humans (or any animal). One way is modification of somatic cells, and the other is the... Read More
Answer:
Posted on May 10, 2017
The simple answer is that 20+ years of composition assessments of GMO crops have demonstrated that crop composition is not appreciably affected by the GM process (1). In addition, data collected through that time have indicated that general factors such as the growth environment can contribute to notable variation in component levels (2). Plant agglutinins (or lectins) and amylase inhibitors are examples of anti-nutritional compounds that may be present in crops. The relevance of such a... Read More