BENEFITS OF GMO TO THE ECONOMY

The Economy
GM crops are sold into a market and are subject to the market in terms of providing a realized
value proposition for farmers and value through the food chain in terms of reduced costs of
production (Lucht, 2015). Currently the GM crops on the market are targeted to farmers and
have a value proposition based on economic benefits to farmers via operational benefits
(Mauro, McLachlan, & Van Acker, 2009). Due to higher yield and lower production cost of GM
crops, farmers will get more economic return and produce more food at affordable prices, which
can potentially provide benefits to consumers including the poor (Lucht, 2015; Lemaux, 2009).
The most significant economic benefits attributed to GM crop cultivation have been higher gross
margins due to lower costs of pest management for farmers (Klümper & Qaim, 2014;
Qaim, 2010). GM varieties have provided a financial benefit for many farmers
(Andreasen, 2014). In some regions, GM crops have led to reduced labor costs for farmers
(Bennett et al., 2005). Whether GM crops have helped to better feed the poor and alleviate
global poverty is not yet proven (Yuan et al., 2011).

Pros
Genetic modification can make crops more resistant to diseases as they grow.

Manufacturers use genetic modification to give foods desirable traits. For example,
they have designed two new varieties of apple that turn less brown when cut or
bruised.

The reasoning usually involves making crops more resistant to diseases as they grow.
Manufacturers also engineer produce to be more nutritious or tolerant of herbicides.

Crop protection is the main rationale behind this type of genetic modification. Plants
that are more resistant to diseases spread by insects or viruses result in higher yields
for farmers and a more attractive product.

Genetically modification can also increase nutritional value or enhance flavor.

All of these factors contribute to lower costs for the consumer. They can also ensure
that more people have access to quality food.
Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods
May 2014
These questions and answers have been prepared by WHO in response to questions and concerns from WHO
Member State Governments with regard to the nature and safety of genetically modified food.
1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in
which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or
natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes
also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be
transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM
organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
2. Why are GM foods produced?
GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or
consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of
durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by
producers and have concentrated on innovations that bring direct benefit to farmers (and the food industry
generally).
One of the objectives for developing plants based on GM organisms is to improve crop protection. The GM
crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction
of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards
herbicides.
Resistance against insects is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and
is safe for human consumption. GM crops that inherently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower
quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high. Virus resistance is achieved
through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes
plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.
Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to
some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in
the quantity of the herbicides used.
3. Is the safety of GM foods assessed differently from conventional foods?
Generally consumers consider that conventional foods (that have an established record of safe consumption over
the history) are safe. Whenever novel varieties of organisms for food use are developed using the traditional
breeding methods that had existed before the introduction of gene technology, some of the characteristics of
organisms may be altered, either in a positive or a negative way. National food authorities may be called upon to
examine the safety of such conventional foods obtained from novel varieties of organisms, but this is not always
the case.
In contrast, most national authorities consider that specific assessments are necessary for GM foods. Specific
systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human
health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for conventional foods. Hence there
currently exists a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.
The WHO Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses aims at assisting national authorities in the identification of
foods that should be subject to risk assessment and to recommend appropriate approaches to safety assessment.
Should national authorities decide to conduct safety assessment of GM organisms, WHO recommends the use of
Codex Alimentarius guidelines (See the answer to Question 11 below).
4. How is a safety assessment of GM food conducted?
The safety assessment of GM foods generally focuses on: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) potential to
provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties;
(d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any
unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.
5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?
While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the
potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.
Allergenicity
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is
discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic.
While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for
the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.
Gene transfer
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern
if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if
antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the
probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance
genes is encouraged.
Outcrossing
The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as
“outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an
indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal
feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several
countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM
crops and conventional crops are grown.
6. How is a risk assessment for the environment performed?
Environmental risk assessments cover both the GMO concerned and the potential receiving environment. The
assessment process includes evaluation of the characteristics of the GMO and its effect and stability in the
environment, combined with ecological characteristics of the environment in which the introduction will take
place. The assessment also includes unintended effects which could result from the insertion of the new gene.
7. What are the issues of concern for the environment?
Issues of concern include: the capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes
into wild populations; the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-
target organisms (e.g. insects which are not pests) to the gene product; the stability of the gene; the reduction in
the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in agriculture. The
environmental safety aspects of GM crops vary considerably according to local conditions.
8. Are GM foods safe?
Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods
and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements
on the safety of all GM foods.
 GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to
present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the
consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.
Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where
appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.
9. How are GM foods regulated nationally?
The way governments have regulated GM foods varies. In some countries GM foods are not yet regulated.
Countries which have legislation in place focus primarily on assessment of risks for consumer health. Countries
which have regulatory provisions for GM foods usually also regulate GMOs in general, taking into account
health and environmental risks, as well as control- and trade-related issues (such as potential testing and
labelling regimes). In view of the dynamics of the debate on GM foods, legislation is likely to continue to
evolve.
10. What kind of GM foods are on the market internationally?
GM crops available on the international market today have been designed using one of three basic traits:
resistance to insect damage; resistance to viral infections; and tolerance towards certain herbicides. GM crops
with higher nutrient content (e.g. soybeans increased oleic acid) have been also studied recently.
11. What happens when GM foods are traded internationally?
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the joint FAO/WHO intergovernmental body responsible for
developing the standards, codes of practice, guidelines and recommendations that constitute the Codex
Alimentarius, meaning the international food code. Codex developed principles for the human health risk
analysis of GM foods in 2003.
 Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology
The premise of these principles sets out a premarket assessment, performed on a caseby- case basis and
including an evaluation of both direct effects (from the inserted gene) and unintended effects (that may arise as a
consequence of insertion of the new gene) Codex also developed three Guidelines:
 Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants
 Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods produced using recombinant-DNA microorganisms
 Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA animals
Codex principles do not have a binding effect on national legislation, but are referred to specifically in the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organization (SPS
Agreement), and WTO Members are encouraged to harmonize national standards with Codex standards. If
trading partners have the same or similar mechanisms for the safety assessment of GM foods, the possibility that
one product is approved in one country but rejected in another becomes smaller.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an environmental treaty legally binding for its Parties which took effect in
2003, regulates transboundary movements of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs). GM foods are within the
scope of the Protocol only if they contain LMOs that are capable of transferring or replicating genetic material.
The cornerstone of the Protocol is a requirement that exporters seek consent from importers before the first
shipment of LMOs intended for release into the environment.
12. Have GM products on the international market passed a safety assessment?
The GM products that are currently on the international market have all passed safety assessments conducted by
national authorities. These different assessments in general follow the same basic principles, including an
assessment of environmental and human health risk. The food safety assessment is usually based on Codex
documents.
13. Why has there been concern about GM foods among some politicians, public interest
groups and consumers?
Since the first introduction on the market in the mid-1990s of a major GM food (herbicide-resistant soybeans),
there has been concern about such food among politicians, activists and consumers, especially in Europe.
Several factors are involved. In the late 1980s – early 1990s, the results of decades of molecular research
reached the public domain. Until that time, consumers were generally not very aware of the potential of this
research. In the case of food, consumers started to wonder about safety because they perceive that modern
biotechnology is leading to the creation of new species.
Consumers frequently ask, “what is in it for me?”. Where medicines are concerned, many consumers more
readily accept biotechnology as beneficial for their health (e.g. vaccines, medicines with improved treatment
potential or increased safety). In the case of the first GM foods introduced onto the European market, the
products were of no apparent direct benefit to consumers (not significantly cheaper, no increased shelflife, no
better taste). The potential for GM seeds to result in bigger yields per cultivated area should lead to lower prices.
However, public attention has focused on the risk side of the risk-benefit equation, often without distinguishing
between potential environmental impacts and public health effects of GMOs.
Consumer confidence in the safety of food supplies in Europe has decreased significantly as a result of a number
of food scares that took place in the second half of the 1990s that are unrelated to GM foods. This has also had
an impact on discussions about the acceptability of GM foods. Consumers have questioned the validity of risk
assessments, both with regard to consumer health and environmental risks, focusing in particular on long-term
effects. Other topics debated by consumer organizations have included allergenicity and antimicrobial resistance.
Consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labelling GM foods, allowing for an
informed choice of consumers.
14. What is the state of public debate on GMOs?
The release of GMOs into the environment and the marketing of GM foods have resulted in a public debate in
many parts of the world. This debate is likely to continue, probably in the broader context of other uses of
biotechnology (e.g. in human medicine) and their consequences for human societies. Even though the issues
under debate are usually very similar (costs and benefits, safety issues), the outcome of the debate differs from
country to country. On issues such as labelling and traceability of GM foods as a way to address consumer
preferences, there is no worldwide consensus to date. Despite the lack of consensus on these topics, the Codex
Alimentarius Commission has made significant progress and developed Codex texts relevant to labelling of
foods derived from modern biotechnology in 2011 to ensure consistency on any approach on labelling
implemented by Codex members with already adopted Codex provisions.
15. Are people’s reactions related to the different attitudes to food in various regions of
the world?
Depending on the region of the world, people often have different attitudes to food. In addition to nutritional
value, food often has societal and historical connotations, and in some instances may have religious importance.
Technological modification of food and food production may evoke a negative response among consumers,
especially in the absence of sound risk communication on risk assessment efforts and cost/benefit evaluations.
16. Are there implications for the rights of farmers to own their crops?
Yes, intellectual property rights are likely to be an element in the debate on GM foods, with an impact on the
rights of farmers. In the FAO/WHO expert consultation in 2003
(http://www.who.int/entity/foodsafety/biotech/meetings/en/gmanimal_reportnov03_en .pdf), WHO and FAO
have considered potential problems of the technological divide and the unbalanced distribution of benefits and
risks between developed and developing countries and the problem often becomes even more acute through the
existence of intellectual property rights and patenting that places an advantage on the strongholds of scientific
and technological expertise. Such considerations are likely to also affect the debate on GM foods.
 17. Why are certain groups concerned about the growing influence of the chemical
industry on agriculture?
Certain groups are concerned about what they consider to be an undesirable level of control of seed markets by a
few chemical companies. Sustainable agriculture and biodiversity benefit most from the use of a rich variety of
crops, both in terms of good crop protection practices as well as from the perspective of society at large and the
values attached to food. These groups fear that as a result of the interest of the chemical industry in seed
markets, the range of varieties used by farmers may be reduced mainly to GM crops. This would impact on the
food basket of a society as well as in the long run on crop protection (for example, with the development of
resistance against insect pests and tolerance of certain herbicides). The exclusive use of herbicide-tolerant GM
crops would also make the farmer dependent on these chemicals. These groups fear a dominant position of the
chemical industry in agricultural development, a trend which they do not consider to be sustainable.
18. What further developments can be expected in the area of GMOs?
Future GM organisms are likely to include plants with improved resistance against plant disease or drought,
crops with increased nutrient levels, fish species with enhanced growth characteristics. For non-food use, they
may include plants or animals producing pharmaceutically important proteins such as new vaccines.
19. What has WHO been doing to improve the evaluation of GM foods?
WHO has been taking an active role in relation to GM foods, primarily for two reasons:
 on the grounds that public health could benefit from the potential of biotechnology, for example, from an
increase in the nutrient content of foods, decreased allergenicity and more efficient and/or sustainable food
production; and
 based on the need to examine the potential negative effects on human health of the consumption of food
produced through genetic modification in order to protect public health. Modern technologies should be
thoroughly evaluated if they are to constitute a true improvement in the way food is produced.
WHO, together with FAO, has convened several expert consultations on the evaluation of GM foods and
provided technical advice for the Codex Alimentarius Commission which was fed into the Codex Guidelines on
safety assessment of GM foods. WHO will keep paying due attention to the safety of GM foods from the view of
public health protection, in close collaboration with FAO and other international bodies.
Economic benefits
Globally, the report found that farmers received an average of $3.59 for each dollar invested in GM
crop seeds in 2014. However, in developing countries that number was even higher, as farmers in
places like South and Latin America, Africa and Asia received an average of $4.42 for every dollar
invested in GM crops.

Much of the economic boom resulting from

growing genetically engineered crops resulted from insect resistant (IR) crops like those engineered
to produce the Bt insecticide—a protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis,which is also used in
organic farming in a topical spray application. From 1996-2014, farmers saw significant increases in
yields due to reduced pest infestations from insect resistant cotton and corn. Corn farmers
experienced a 13 percent increase in yields just from IR technology, while cotton farmers
experienced 17+ percent yield gains as compared to conventional farming. In 2014 alone, IR
genetically engineered corn was responsible for $5.3 billion in added income for farmers globally.
Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops (like glyphosate resistant crops) also produced significant economic
benefits for farmers planting them—particularly in the soybean and canola sectors. Globally HT
technology boosted farmers’ income by $5.2 billion in 2014 alone and has delivered an additional
$46.6 billion in income for farmers since 1996. HT canola crops, mainly grown in North America,
contributed an additional $4.86 billion in income for farmers since 1996.

Overall since 1996, farmers in developing countries received $70 billion in additional income from
GM crops—largely from benefits derived from IR and HT technologies.

How GMOs Can Help Us Do More With

Less
GMO AnswersContributor
Opinion
 POST WRITTEN BY

Kate Hall

Kate Hall is managing director of the Council for Biotechnology Information and GMO Answers spokesperson.

TWEET THIS
 Doing more with less is the challenge of our age, and GMOs help to address that
challenge when it comes to agriculture.
 GMO crops already have increased productivity on the world’s 3.7 billion acres of
arable land


As we face major environmental challenges, finding solutions that improve sustainability are key
– and GMOs have proven to be a part of the solution when it comes to positively impacting the
environment. In honor of the United Nations’ World Environment Day, an annual platform for
encouraging worldwide awareness for environmental protection, we wanted to raise awareness
about how GMOs positively impact the environment. We are celebrating this year’s World
Environment Day by launching the first of a series of informational infographics to show how
GMOs help to conserve our resources and land.

Our series’ first infographic highlights how GMOs help protect the environment by allowing
farmers to produce more crops, using less resources, which ultimately reduces agriculture’s
impact on habitat destruction, while also conserving soil, water and energy.

Can GMOs help protect the environment? Contrary to myths about GMOs hurting the
environment, GMOs allow farmers to preserve the land while doing more with less
resources. (Infographic Credit: GMO Answers)

Doing more with less is the challenge of our age, and GMOs help to address that challenge when
it comes to agriculture. Last year, a United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
report projected a near 20 percent increase in the world’s population by 2050. The estimated
global population of 9.7 billion means that farmers will need to produce much more to meet
higher demand for food, fiber and fuel. There are two potential avenues to do this: we could
either convert more arable land into agricultural production, or enable higher yields on existing
farmland through advances in agricultural technologies such as GMOs.
Wild lands, forests, prairies and pastures are vital habitats for bees, butterflies and other wildlife
and have countless human, natural and economic benefits that we all have a responsibility to
protect. By improving agricultural yield, GMO crops can help protect the environment by
allowing farmers to produce more food on existing farmland rather than cultivating wild lands.

GMO crops already have increased productivity on the world’s 3.7 billion acres of arable land —
which has helped to prevent deforestation and conserve biodiversity.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Grads of Life BRANDVOICE

The Best Way To Rejuvenate Rural America? Invest In Rural America.

UNICEF USA BRANDVOICE

UNICEF Is Mobilizing To Protect Migrant Children In The U.S.

Prime Day 2019: Save On An Echo Bundle With A Smart Plug Or Amazon Music

A recent study published by PG Economics showed that GMOs reduce pressure on land
resources while contributing to greater global food security by increasing yields:

 In 2014, if GMO crops had not been available, farmers would have needed to cultivate
51 million more acres of land to produce the same amount of corn, soybeans, cotton
and canola. That’s equivalent to all of the farmland in Iowa and Missouri – 12 percent of
the arable land in the U.S.

 From 1996 to 2014, crop biotechnology was responsible for increasing global production
of soybeans by almost 175 million tons, corn by almost 355 million tons, cotton by 27
million tons and canola by 10 million tons.

Another study, published in the journal PLOS One, found that by growing GMO crops, farmers
have increased crop yields by 22 percent.

As we continue to work towards solutions to help address the increased agricultural demands of
a growing global population while protecting the natural environment, it’s important to recognize
the environmental benefits that GMOs have made and will continue to make.

At GMO Answers, our goal is to help the public better understand how GMOs can be one tool to
help increase sustainability in agriculture and to protect the environment.

WRITING NATURE:
DISCOURSES OF ECOLOGY
 The Economics of Genetically Modified Foods
Mark Hammer

One of the hallmarks of the modern era has been the birth of genetic engineering. This
technology allows us to modify the very fabric of life to our own ends; one important
application of this that has developed in the last twenty years is the genetic
modification of plants in food production. Genetically modified foods have flourished
in the United States, creating a raging controversy both here and abroad over the
prudence of growing and consuming these crops. Much of the popular debate centers
on the moral implications of the issue; however, this paper concentrates on the issue's
economic impact to come to an objective conclusion. Through examination of the
scientific evidence available, it is clear that genetic engineering affords great potential
for economic gain in the future. However, the present line of genetically modified
crops fails to live up to this potential. Consequently, farmers should go cautiously in
adopting the technology until more of its potentials have been realized and its
negative side effects better understood.

The technology of genetic engineering rests on a very simple premise&emdash;to

improve an organism by adding genes from other organisms to its genome. In
genetically modified crops, the genes are usually present in all cells of the adult
organism, including the reproductive cell lines. Consequently, they are passed on to
the plant's offspring. Genetic engineering technology has revolutionary potential in
agriculture, for it allows one to design a plant to one's liking. In this way, it may seem
a world away from previously existing agricultural technologies. However, this is not
quite true, for humans have practiced so-called "artificial selection," or selective
breeding, for thousands of years. Food plants that exist today were bred by people to
taste better and produce more than their natural counterparts. In fact, this procedure,
which is not at all the object of moral or environmental outrage, can be as dangerous
as genetic engineering. For example, an artificially bred potato variety proved
poisonous to humans because of increased toxin levels (Webber ¶106). Clearly,
genetic engineering is merely a refined version of selective breeding, just another step
in the long tradition of improvements in agriculture. The only real difference between
the two methods is the possibility in genetic engineering of mixing genes between
species.

The increased power of genetic engineering over selective breeding allows a large
number of applications, some of which are still in development. One of the more
common uses of genetic engineering is to introduce herbicide resistance into plants.
This lets the farmer to spray herbicide liberally on his crops, killing all of the weeds
but none of the crops. A prime example of this usage is "Roundup Ready" soybeans,
resistant to the herbicide Roundup (Altieri and Rosset 156). Another application of
genetic engineering is making plants hardier or more productive; in particular, one can
insert disease resistance or the ability to grow in harsh environments. Bt corn, for
example, produces insecticide (156), and strawberries could potentially contain
"antifreeze" genes from fish to prevent frost damage (Webber ¶15). A third use of
genetic engineering is the modification of crops so that their produce lasts longer on
the shelf. For example, there is work on introducing genes into sweet corn to make it
stay sweet longer (¶11). In a similar vein, scientists are working on making foods
more nutritious as well as better tasting. Research is also directed toward creating
plants that produce medicines; these medicines would probably be much cheaper, and
would certainly be easier to consume, than those produced in factories. One example
of this is the production of hepatitis B vaccines in potatoes, currently in development
("Molecular" ¶23).

With such great potential benefits come also potential harms, and the debate over
whether or not to pursue genetic modification in agriculture is a passionate one. There
are a number of valid claims on both sides ("Molecular"; "Genetically"). Those
supporting genetically modified foods cite their efficiency (profitability and
productivity), necessary to a growing world population; their potential to be healthier
than naturally occurring varieties; and their observed safety (Americans have been
eating them for years without harm). Those against genetic modification remind us of
the possibility of gene migration to other species; the possibility that genetically
modified foods may be unhealthy in the long run; the fact that allegedly untrustworthy
large corporations are in charge of the industry; and the possibility that scientists may
be unethical or unknowledgeable. These arguments all have economic impacts that
must be examined more closely.

One important area of consideration regarding genetically modified foods is their

direct financial impact: on consumers in developed countries, on consumers in
developing countries, on farmers, and on international trade.

Consumers in developed countries are a critically important market for genetically

modified foods. In this market, the difference between the genetically modified
varieties and their natural counterparts has two categories of effects on consumers.
The first type is an effect on the consumer's perception of the food's quality. If the
consumer feels that genetically modified foods are better, he is willing to buy more
and pay more for what he buys. Conversely, if the consumer perceives a decrease in
quality, he will not buy as much genetically modified food and may switch to
substitutes, such as organic foods. The consumer's perception of quality may be
motivated by a number of concerns. On the side of lesser quality, one big issue is fear.
If consumers are led to believe that genetically modified foods are unsafe, they will
certainly not buy them. Another factor potentially decreasing quality is the fact that
the foods may actually have less nutritional value than their natural counterparts
(Altieri and Rosset 156). In this case, health-conscious consumers would rather buy
the natural varieties. Finally, there is the possibility that some of the foods are toxic or
allergenic (157). This would cause a harsh consumer backlash against all genetically
modified foods, possibly crippling the industry for years. On balance, there are a
number of issues that could increase the quality of genetically modified foods. These
include, at least for some varieties, a much healthier appearance. Foods engineered to
have a longer shelf life will appear, and taste, much better than their natural
counterparts. Examples of this include the sweet corn mentioned above and non-
bruising, redder tomatoes (Webber ¶7). As appearance is very important to
consumers, it is quite likely that they will forgo any small improvements in, say,
nutritional content for tomatoes that are not bruised or ugly. Another positive
characteristic of genetically modified foods is that they are (or could be) produced
with fewer pesticides; hence there is much less pesticide residue on the produce itself
(Gaisford et al. 11). Again, consumers will perceive that this is a significant
improvement over traditional foods. Genetic engineering also allows the creation of
plants without allergens; for example, a company could design a peanut that is edible
by those allergic to conventional peanuts (Gaisford et al. 12). This would open the
peanut market to many more people, and all consumers will feel safer about buying
peanuts, since there would not be a risk of inadvertently causing an allergic reaction.
In a similar way, foods could be engineered to be healthier for the consumer; for
example, people on diets would buy especially starchy potatoes designed to make
leaner French fries (Gaisford et al. 12). In addition, foods could be made to be more
convenient for the consumer to prepare, such as seedless watermelons or tender-
stemmed broccoli (Gaisford et al. 12). The numerous benefits of genetically modified
foods conflict with their potential health hazards, leaving a final judgement of quality
unclear.

In addition to a different quality, consumers will also notice a price difference

between genetically modified foods and their natural counterparts. Most likely, since
genetically modified foods are cheaper for farmers, the savings will be passed on to
consumers and the produce will be cheaper (Gaisford et al. 11). However, this effect
is not as great as one would imagine, for the simple reason that food is cheap already
(Avramovic 25). Another price advantage of genetically modified plants is the
potential for the costs of certain medicines to be reduced by the use of plants to
produce them (Gaisford et al. 12). Some examples of this include the work on potato-
produced hepatitis B vaccine discussed above and the production of a blood
anticoagulant in canola (Gaisford et al. 12). It is clear that, as far as prices go, genetic
engineering in agriculture will have a large impact on the pharmaceuticals industry
but only a slight effect on the food industry.
The same sort of consumer issues are relevant in developing countries, but the issues
have different implications in these very poor and hungry areas. Here quantity is a
bigger problem than quality: many people in developing countries are malnourished
and have inadequate healthcare. Therefore, the applications to the pharmaceutical
business discussed above would be greatly beneficial to developing countries, since
their problem is not only drug prices but also drug availability. A similar problem is
seen in traditional food agriculture: in many places there is a severe lack of nutritional
edibles. Genetically modified crops would help because they allow the possibility of
farming in poor soil or with much less use of fertilizer (McGloughlin 165).
Additionally, the use of crops engineered to have higher nutritional content (as
discussed above) would have an extremely beneficial effect on developing countries
(McGloughlin 164). Finally, crops engineered to have longer shelf lives will be very
useful because storage and transportation are difficult in developing countries
(Gaisford et al. 14). The potential disadvantages to using genetically modified foods
there are the same as those for developed countries, especially the possibility of health
risks and the possibility that the foods are in fact less nutritional than natural ones.

Some proponents of genetic engineering remark that these disadvantages are

immaterial when we are faced with population expansion. In fact, this point is not
only relevant to developing countries&emdash;the population of the entire world is
increasing, and it needs to be fed. According to some, the so-called "Malthusian Trap"
(Conko 150), the idea that population grows much faster than food supply, will catch
us unprepared unless we employ genetic engineering in our agriculture (McGloughlin
164). As much as other issues complicate the debate today, in the near future
population pressure will be an unequivocal impetus necessitating more efficient and
greater production of food.

Genetically modified foods do not just affect consumers; farmers must also weigh the
costs and benefits of this new technology as they try to earn profits in a highly
competitive market. One major (alleged) benefit of genetically modified crops is their
efficiency. In particular, genetically modified foods usually promise increased
productivity. Both by direct improvements in the plants and by the addition of
inherent pesticides, the yield of genetically modified plants is supposedly much higher
than that of their natural counterparts (McGloughlin 166). For this reason, China has
begun to employ genetically modified foods to help alleviate its food problems
(Huang et al. 367). However, the scientific evidence of this increase in production
efficiency is controversial; many researchers assert that genetically modified crop
yield is no different and even in some cases lower than that of traditional methods
(Altieri and Rosset 156). Pretty says that "there is widespread consensus that yields
have not increased, rather they have tended to be lower compared with conventional
varieties" (255). In view of these conflicting reports, it seems that the few properly
controlled studies on this issue that exist are in disagreement, so a proper judgement is
not possible. A less controversial issue relating to the efficiency of genetically
modified foods is their cost to farmers. Usually, they are much cheaper and easier to
maintain. In particular, genetically modified foods generally require much less
pesticide or herbicide usage. One effect of this is to drive down the price of pesticides
in general because of decreased demand (McGloughlin 165); in fact, this competition
with genetically modified foods aids all farmers. Of course, the decreased pesticide
usage for those farmers using genetically modified foods means their operating costs
are lower already. In addition to decreased pesticide usage, genetically modified foods
offer a number of other advantages, specific to their variety. For example, plants could
be made that act like legumes, fixing their own nitrogen and so requiring less fertilizer
(Avramovic 19). The only obstacle to these decreased maintenance costs is the
potential for monopolies to take advantage of the farmers. Because a modified variety
of plant is unique to a specific manufacturer, that company has monopoly power.
Hence it can charge more money for the product; this is sometimes called a
"technology fee" (Pretty 257). Theoretically, the company could make the technology
fee equal to the savings gained by using the more efficient genetically modified
variety; in this case, there would be no advantage to the farmer for using genetically
modified crops. According to Pretty, this practice is common, but sometimes
companies will give a discount to small farmers or farmers in developing countries
(257).

The combination of yield effects and cost effects produces a net effect on the profits
of farmers using genetically modified foods. The USDA report on the Adoption of
Bioengineered Crops concludes that at least some genetically modified foods are
profitable, such as herbicide-tolerant corn (24). However, in many cases, "factors
other than the financial impacts appear to be important reasons for the rapid adoption
of GE [genetically engineered] crops" (McBride and El-Osta 175). The net effect of
genetically modified foods on farmer profits is then not significantly positive, so it
appears that at this moment there is no real economic reason for farmers to use them.

Despite no clear direct economic advantage, farmers may have other valid reasons to
use genetically modified foods. For example, genetically modified foods are easier for
the farmer to take care of, allowing him to spend more time doing other things. In
particular, since (in some cases) they are hardier and better at growing in poor soil, the
farmer has to work less to make the land suitable for growing (Gaisford et al. 13).
Additionally, in some cases, one is able to do without any pesticide at all, an
especially huge boon for farmers in developing countries who might find it hard to get
pesticides (Gaisford et al. 13). Another advantage to using genetically modified foods
is that they are better for the environment. For example, the lower pesticide usage is
probably more sustainable than the older method of high pesticide usage (see below).
In addition, the increased efficiency mentioned above (if it is present) would allow
farmers to use less acreage to produce the same amount of food and make the same
amount of money. Therefore, there could be more land left to nature. These
environmental advantages in the short run translate to economic advantages in the
long run, as land is then fertile for much longer.

Unfortunately, the advantages are not as great as they may seem. One problem derives
from the economic gain itself. It is a well-known result in economics that, in the
perfectly competitive market of agriculture, the higher profits earned by farmers in the
short run will eventually pass to consumers, causing farmers to make less money in
the long run. Problems also arise with the ecological impact of genetically modified
crops. As discussed below, the technology of genetic engineering could cause great
harm to the environment in the long run, particularly in ways troublesome for farmers.
Consequently, the economic evaluation of the farmers' situation yields a number of
potential costs and benefits but no conclusive recommendation.

Of course, both consumers and farmers are at the mercy of the world market.
Currently, as Figure 1 shows, the United States and Canada are by far the major
producers of genetically modified foods, with very few other countries participating.

Fig 1. (Environmental News Network)

In the international market, genetically modified foods have been differentiated from
those produced naturally, and so countries have the choice of whether or not to accept
them. The first impact of this choice is in the trade balance between the United States
and the European Union, as the former uses genetically modified foods extensively,
whereas the latter does not use them at all. Because of this, with the stipulation that
genetically modified crops have increased yields, EU producers are significantly hurt
(Frisvold, Sullivan, and Raneses 241). To combat this, the EU could either require the
labeling of genetically modified foods or impose an import ban; unfortunately, both of
these tactics hurt European consumers (Gaisford et al. 195, 200). Of course, they also
hurt American producers; in fact, it is very difficult for the United States to produce
non-genetically modified foods, since they are used so extensively here and have most
likely contaminated non-modified populations (see also below) (207). However,
Gaisford, et al., point out that "inventions, innovations and their applications give
adopting countries a lead over others" (222). In other words, in the long run, it is quite
likely that the United States will benefit from genetic engineering, though it is hurt in
the short run.

The same issues that affect developed countries apply to developing countries.
Unfortunately, for them the conflict mirrors the Cold War, in that the developed
countries play the developing countries off each other. They are able to do this
because only the most economically powerful countries have any real say in trade
agreements (Pinstrup-Anderson 215); China is the only developing country has the
potential to hold sway in the international economic community (217). Trade
agreements notwithstanding, the effects of genetically modified crops upon a
developing country depends on whether the country is an exporter or an importer. If
the country imports the cheaper genetically modified food, it is at an advantage;
however, if it exports genetically modified food, it may run into various import bans.
Despite this potential obstacle, developing countries do have reasons to use
genetically modified agriculture. One is that the increased efficiency (if true) would
help their agricultural industry and so aid their economy in general (Gaisford et al.
14). The other advantage is that mentioned for developed countries: those countries
that adopt new technology are helped in the long run.

The analysis of the direct economic impacts of genetically modified foods shows that
the advantages are few at the moment, but in the future they may be significant. In the
long run, though, one must also consider the potential ecological impact of genetic
engineering. This is because any damage to the environment now will make farming
much more difficult in the future; that will place great burdens on farmers as well as
on the hungry population, driving up prices and increasing the probability of
shortages. Hence we must ensure that what we plant today will not come back to
haunt us.

The first issue regarding ecological impact of genetically modified foods is

responsibility. Both the scientists who develop the genetically modified varieties and
the corporations that market them must act with prudence and caution. This requires
genetic engineers to consider ecological issues; as McGloughlin says, "biotechnology
and agroecological approaches are synergistic" (171). In addition, the corporations
that fund the development and marketing of the genetic modifications must also act in
a trustworthy fashion. If they ignore signs of trouble, irreversible damage may be
done to the environment.
Genetically modified crops may have a number of impacts on the environment.
Among these is the issue of sustainability, i.e. how long can one do something before
it does not work anymore. For example, the use of a single pesticide is generally not
sustainable because insects will develop resistance to it in the long run. Many
proponents of genetically modified crops assert that they are more sustainable than the
traditional methods of agriculture (McGloughlin 171). In particular, genetically
modified crops allegedly decrease pesticide usage. Both the USDA report on
Adoption of Bioengineered Crops and the USDA's Agriculture Fact Book 2002 show
this decreased usage. As Figures 2 and 3 show, corn crops in particular exhibited a
decreased pesticide usage, up to a 9% difference between genetically modified and
traditional agriculture in 1998.

Fig 2. (Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride 27) Fig 3. (Agriculture Fact Book 46)

In addition, independent scientists have also found this decrease to be the case (Huang
et al.), (Pretty). However, others dispute this claim, asserting that the USDA is using a
misleading definition of pesticide usage (Benbrook 204). If it is in fact true that
genetically modified crops require less pesticide use, then they are more sustainable,
and hence it is better for farmers in the long run to use them (Pretty 255). Of course,
this method is still not completely sustainable; it is likely that insects will eventually
become resistant to the pesticides. Altieri and Rosset assert that, because of this,
genetic engineering has exactly the same disadvantages as traditional farming (157),
while McGloughlin says that it is an improvement when combined with other
techniques (167). This reduction in pesticide and herbicide usage leads to the concept
of no-till agriculture, which is farming without the necessity to do the hard work of
tilling to remove weeds. Genetically engineered plants can do this much better than
traditional plants because they do not require as much herbicide and pesticide usage.
No-till agriculture is much better for the environment because it decreases soil erosion
and protects beneficial insects that live in the soil (McGloughlin 169). For these
reasons, no-till agriculture is much more sustainable than traditional till agriculture.
However, as some point out, it is possible to practice no-till agriculture without using
genetically modified crops (Griffiths ¶18). It is clear, though, that the use of
genetically modified crops does increase the sustainability of agriculture, although the
extent of this effect is contended.

The other major issue in the ecology of genetically modified crops centers around the
world plant gene pool. One problem is that the use of genetically modified crops
decreases the diversity of the gene pool because there is usually very little diversity in
the seeds produced by bioengineering companies (Altieri and Rosset 157). This is
problematic because it is then very easy for a disease to destroy all crops of a specific
type, since their immunities are all the same. Another problem with genetically
modified crops is that they may overexpress the genes inserted in them; if these are
toxins, their overproduction could harm beneficial insects (158). Of course, this
problem is also relevant to traditional pesticide use; additionally, the problem can be
fixed in genetically engineered plants by having them produce less of the toxin or
produce it in specific areas of the plant (McGloughlin 170). A third problem with
genetically modified crops is the possibility of the creation of "superweeds" (Altieri
and Rosset 158). If a herbicide resistance gene migrates from a genetically engineered
crop to a close relative that is a weed, then that species of weed will be resistant to the
pesticide. This would create a big problem for farmers, who would then have to find
another pesticide to use on that weed. The most common effect of gene migration,
however, is the migration of genes from genetically modified plants to non-modified
plants of the same species, contaminating the population. This is a legitimate concern
for those trying to grow natural crops for sale in Europe or for sale at home as organic
foods. The net ecological assessment of genetically modified crops, then, is that there
is slight potential for ecological havoc; however, a more realistic assessment shows
that the most likely gene pool effects are similar to those caused by traditional
artificial selection methods (McGlouglin 168-9).

The potential of genetically modified foods to harm the environment raises the
question of responsibility; the oligopolies and monopolies that produce the seeds
control both a farmer's profitability and the environment's health. By the very nature
of genetic modification, the companies producing modified organisms have monopoly
power (Gaisford et al. 80). This means that they are able to charge higher prices and,
because they are currently the large agribusinesses, it is likely that they could also act
irresponsibly or unfairly. In sum, the noncompetitive nature of the genetically
modified seed market means that the producers are able to take advantage of farmers
(Goldsmith 1323). Of course, this monopoly power is the reward companies get for
innovation (Gaisford et al. 80), for they take a great risk when they invest in research.
Without compensation, there would be no innovation, and without innovation, we
would not be able to feed the growing world population (McGloughlin 164). The
problems arise, of course, when the corporations take unfair advantage of their
monopoly power to overcharge farmers. The potential for abuse is rather high, but it is
the price we pay for innovation.

The irresponsible actions of the large agribusinesses may extend far beyond their
interactions with farmers. These concerns are suggested by the fact that, as one writer
says, "some of the world's worst polluters are fixing dinner" (Story 8). In fact, there
are already a number of examples of corporations engaging in questionable behavior.
One is the production of herbicide-resistant seeds by the company that produces the
herbicide, which Altieri and Rosset allege was a determined effort to increase the
company's market share in the herbicide industry (156). Additionally, Altieri and
Rosset assert that agribusinesses are opposed to the labeling of genetically modified
foods so that they can escape liability for problems (157). A third example that
suggests corporate irresponsibility is the "rapid adoption of GE [genetically
engineered] crops when the evidence about farm financial impacts is not clear or
counter-intuitive" (McBride and El-Osta 189). In other words, despite the scientific
results showing decreased profitability, farmers are increasing their use and testing of
genetically modified crops exponentially, as Figures 4 and 5 show.

Fig 4. (Marrs) Fig 5. (IFPRI)

Part of the reason for the increase, according to McBride and El-Osta, is a misleading
perception of their efficiency, promulgated by the biotechnology corporations (189).
Clearly, biotechnology corporations are not to be trusted to act fairly; the question
then is whether the innovations they produce are worth the trouble the companies may
cause.
As is clear from the above economic analysis, a definitive conclusion supporting or
rejecting genetically modified crops is not easy. Most of the current evidence shows
no significant differences between genetically modified crops and their natural
counterparts. Hence, in the absence of any compelling reason to adopt genetically
engineered crops, farmers should use personal preference in determining the crops
they plant. However, in the future, the situation may be much different; the
technology's potentials presented above could help alleviate the world hunger
problem, make food healthier, make medicines cheaper, and make agriculture more
environmentally friendly. On the flip side, there is potential for significant ecological
harm to be caused if the new genes get out of control. Consequently, it is up to science
to collect more evidence to determine the true risk of genetic engineering and to
implement its potential benefits. Only then could a final analysis be made as to
whether or not genetic engineering is an advantageous technology, at which point
farmers could conclusively decide whether or not to participate. However, in the face
of a growing world population and looming potential environmental problems, it
seems likely that genetic modification will be a necessity.

PH is top grower of GM crops in SEA

+
AA

-
ACE JUNE RELL S. PEREZ

May 19, 2017

MUNTINLUPA CITY -- Philippines ranked as the top grower of biotech or genetically modified
(GM) crops in Southeast Asia and 12th biggest producer globally last year, the International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application (ISAAA) revealed on Friday, May 19.

ISAAA’s chair of the board of Trustees, Dr. Paul Teng, during a media conference on the global
status of commercialized GM crops in 2016 at the Acacia Hotel, Alabang, Muntinlupa City, said
the country reached a total of 812,000 hectares of biotech or GM corn planted here in 2016, a
significant increase of 16 percent from the 702,000 hectares were grown in 2015.

Highest hectarage of GM corn recorded is at 831,000 hectares in 2014.

Adoption rates of biotech or GM corn here are up by two percentage points to 65 percent in 2016
from 63 percent in 2015. Growing biotech or GM corn has benefitted some 406,000 farmers last
year.

“Biotech crops have become a vital agricultural resource for farmers because of the immense
benefits for improved productivity and profitability, as well as conservation efforts,” Teng said.

In a global scale, a total of 185.1 million hectares of biotech or GM crops were planted in 26
countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North and Latin America in 2016.

GM corn, being the lone biotech crop allowed here, has been planted since 2003 after its
approval for commercialization in 2002.

According to the report, the farm level economic benefit of planting biotech or GM corn in the
country from 2003 to 2015 is estimated to have reached $642 million, and for 2015 alone, the net
national impact of biotech or GM crop on farm income was estimated at $82 million.

Average landholding of Filipino Biotech farmers is at two hectares.

The corn producing areas in the country are Isabela, Cagayan Valley, South and North Cotabato,
Sarangani and Sultan Kudarat, among others. Davao City is also producing corn but only
minimal.

“The increase (of areas planted) is due to favorable weather conditions, and high local demand
for livestock and feed stocks,” Teng stressed.

GM corn vital in export

Teng said GM corn can play a vital role in Philippines' target to finally export corn to
neighboring countries starting this year.

“Philippines, with 101 percent sufficiency rate in corn, should capitalize on this vantage point. Bt
corn can play a great role in this direction,” he said.

Agriculture Secretary Emmanuel Piñol, in a previous report, said yellow and white corn harvest
for 2017 is expected to hit 8.1-million metric tons.

Bill on Biotechnology pushed

Dr. Vivencio Mamaril, Bureau of Plant Industry’s officer-in-charge and director of the
Department of Agriculture’s Philippine Agriculture and Fisheries biotechnology program, said
Friday that the Congress shows interest of sponsoring a bill promoting Biotechnology.

“We were in the Congress last Tuesday and we are still thinking if we will submit a recycled bill
or craft a new one,” Mamaril shared.

He underscored that food safety appears to be the top concern for most of the members.
He also said the challenge of BPI now is to make the available food safety reports and
information sheets understandable to the public.

“What we have now are very highly technical reports on the safety of these GM crops, so we are
in the direction of making it more understandable to non-science-inclined persons,” he said.

Future plans and initiatives

Teng presented that targets for 2017 and the next coming years were focused on the expansion of
global GM crop area especially of developing countries, new biotech crop and traits in the
pipeline and application of science-based and efficient GM crop regulation.

ISAAA, in its briefer, said current research and development efforts on GM crops in the
Philippines include: fruit and shoot borer resistant Bt eggplant; biotech papaya with delayed
ripening and papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) resistance; Bt cotton; and Golden Rice.

“Maybe, if everything went smooth, no problems will occur along the way, maybe in two years’
time Bt eggplant and golden rice will be mainstreamed,” Mamaril said.

Opposition

It is no secret that the introduction of GM crops here drew opposition from various
organizations.

Chinkee Golle, acting executive director of Interface Development Interventions (Idis), said that
the recent announcement of ISAAA is a threat to its call to ban GM crops.

“This is really alarming and truly a threat to our call to ban the GM crops. While here in Davao
we continue to promote the implementation of organic agriculture, the production of Bt corn
continues, it’s not helping the farmers at all but more of helping the giant companies/producers
of GM crops,” she said.

Mamaril, however, said, in a span of 14 years since Bt corn was planted, no harm has been
reported and proven to the people and environment.

“The mere fact that it grew to 813,000 hectares, from just some 50,000 hectares in 2003, it is but
successful and no one can argue with that,” Mamaril said.

Southeast Asia Regional Center for Graduate Studies and Research in Agriculture director Dr.
Gil Saguiguit, Jr., for his part, said the goal of biotechnology boils down to helping small farmers
and achieving food security.
FCMXC-RDWMP-RFGVD-8TGPD-VQQ2X
MT7YN-TMV9C-7DDX9-64W77-B7R4D
PGD67-JN23K-JGVWW-KTHP4-GXR9G
B9GN2-DXXQC-9DHKT-GGWCR-4X6XK
6PMNJ-Q33T3-VJQFJ-23D3H-6XVTX

KDVQM-HMNFJ-P9PJX-96HDF-DJYGX

YC7DK-G2NP3-2QQC3-J6H88-GVGXT

366NX-BQ62X-PQT9G-GPX4H-VT7TX

2XKYR-THNHY-4M9D4-9YG2X-M96XV

4HNBK-863MH-6CR6P-GQ6WP-J42C9

KBDNM-R8CD9-RK366-WFM3X-C7GXK

6KTFN-PQH9H-T8MMB-YG8K4-367TX

C2FG9-N6J68-H8BTJ-BW3QX-RM3B3

J484Y-4NKBF-W2HMG-DBMJC-PGWR7