"Conventional" breeding relies on cross-pollination between two sexually compatible crop varieties. Generally, these are from the same species (e.g. wheat), but breeding can also take place between related species (e.g. rye and wheat to produce triticale, or blackberry and raspberry to give tayberries). However, the term also covers techniques such as radiation- or chemical-induced mutation. The aim is to produce varieties with improved characteristics – such as higher yield, better disease resistance, better storage properties – without introducing any negative traits. Appropriate parental lines are crossed and the plant breeder relies on his skill to select promising new strains from the resulting progeny. . Marker Assisted breeding helps the process by confirming the presence of desirable genes in individual plants prior to the breeding process. Whatever technique is used, the genome of the new variety is different from the parents, but convention dictates that this is not considered to be genetic modification, the term being reserved for the products of r-DNA technology.

GM technology aims to produce new varieties by adding (or modifying the expression of) specific genes known to control particular traits. Because DNA is the same throughout the plant, micro-organism and animal kingdoms, particular genes can be transferred between unrelated species to give the desired trait. This makes GM more targeted (only a few genes carrying known functions are inserted in the recipient genome), more rapid (bypassing the multiple cross generations needed by traditional breeding) and allows plants to be used to produce molecules which could not be obtained otherwise, such as vaccines or bio-plastics. It can be seen as a form of molecular breeding. However, it is best regarded as a further technique to be used alongside conventional sexual breeding, with each being used alone or in combination as appropriate to improve the range of crop plants at our disposal. Where conventional techniques are effective, they will be used, but genetic modification allows a wider range of useful traits to be incorporated into a given crop.

[top]
 

Are GMOs “non natural”, are we playing God by genetically modifying plants?

We tend to view all things that humankind influences as unnatural. By this definition, all farming is also unnatural, since it modifies existing habitats in order to grow food for our benefit. But, looked at another way, we are only doing what our species is capable of, in the same way as all animals. Unlike most of them, we do not have particular strengths which suit us well for a narrow ecological niche, but are the ultimate generalists and innovators. Humankind could have only evolved and thrived by managing and adapting nature.

Since crops were first deliberately cultivated about 10,000 years ago, continued selection and cross-breeding has given us crop plants which are highly productive and suitable for us to harvest and eat, but which bear little relationship to their wild relatives and could not compete with them if not cultivated and managed to protect them from pests and weeds. Because this is a process which has gone on for many centuries, we regard the situation as natural.

Genetic modification is a new tool for plant breeders to produce improved varieties in a more efficient way. Many people believe that we should focus on the end results rather than the technique used to reach it. Herbicide-tolerant plants are also bred by conventional crossing, mutagenesis and selection, or by direct insertion of a specific gene coding for this trait. The end result is the same, but society currently views the biotechnology route as inherently different.

As with all new technologies which can have an impact on both humans and other species, it is right to consider also the moral and ethical implications of what we do. Although there is a small minority of people who think that genetic manipulation is a step too far, it is important to note that all major religions see no problem with the technology per se. Any concerns they have are related to the way in which the technology might be used. This is a legitimate issue, but it does not suggest that biotechnologists are "playing God".

[top]
 

Are GM plants fertile, or do farmers have to buy new seed every year?

All GM plants commercialized so far are as fertile as their conventional counterparts. Nevertheless, GMO opponents have attacked companies who they claimed were planning to use Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS) or the so-called ‘terminator’ technology to prevent farmers from planting saved seed in the following season (http://www.isaaa.org/Kc/inforesources/publications/pocketk/Pocket_K21_(English).pdf). It has now become something of an urban myth that "terminator" seed is being sold.

Recognising the sensitivity of the subject, there are no such crops in the market place and the major biotech companies have pledged not to use the technology. Note that GURTS and hybrid seeds should not be confused. Already, many farmers, particularly in developed countries, prefer to buy new seed each year because it produces better yields. In the case of F1 hybrid crops such as maize and many vegetables, buying new seed is preferable, as the harvested crop does not breed true. This has not prevented hybrid seed dominating the market, even in developing countries such as India.

[top]
 

Do GM crop plants contribute to reduced pesticide use?

Herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant plants account for more than 95% of the GM crops at present and both contribute to a reduction in farmer’s reliance on plant protection products. They also enable changes in global crop management that help to reduce potential negative impacts on health and the environment.

This was one of the conclusions of a recent large project which made an inventory of altered agrochemical use per hectare of transgenic crops compared with conventional crops by collecting data from public sources, including scientific literature and reports published by dedicated institutions. Several large studies in the US reported lower herbicide use (up to 25-33%) in herbicide-resistant crops (canola, cotton, maize, soybean) compared to conventional counterparts.

Also for insect-resistant Bt crops, many scientific studies continuously indicate a decrease in insecticide sprays. For France, it was estimated that the 22,000 ha of Bt maize cultivated in 2007 allowed for saving up to 8 800 litres of insecticide sprays. In Spain, farmers growing Bt maize applied almost three times less agrochemical treatments/year compared to conventional maize farmers.

One of the best examples is Bt cotton: a nationwide survey carried out in India in 2003 indicated that the farmers were able to obtain on average a reduction in chemical sprays by 60% and a yield increase by about 29% due to effective control of bollworms, as compared to non-Bt cotton.  GM cotton has also resulted in direct health benefits for farm workers, as documented in China (Pray et al 2002; "Five years of Bt cotton in China: The benefits continue." The Plant Journal, 31(4), 423-430.) Further benefits will accrue from the new generation of insect-resistant crops coming to market, which target a greater range of pests and express combinations of Bt proteins to reduce the risk of resistance developing.

GM herbicide-tolerant plants enable farmers to use broad spectrum herbicides with a lower environmental impact – mainly glyphosate and glufosinate – to control weeds effectively around growing crops. This gives a degree of flexibility which often reduces herbicide use. Further environmental benefits result from the reduction of ploughing (‘conservation tillage’) permitted by efficient post-emergence weed control, preventing soil erosion and reducing the run off of applied chemicals to water reservoirs. In all cases, the most important factor is not the amount of spraying, but rather the nature of the pesticide used and the overall impact on the environment. Both insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant GM crops lead to environmental benefits through a decrease in the amounts of plant protection products applied to these crops.

Further reading and references:

The 2006 report of the Swiss Expert Committee for Biosafety gives an extensive review of the relevant scientific literature http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/data/publikationen/ART_SR_01_E.pdf  

PG economics publishes an annual assessment of the global impact of GM crops: see G. Brookes and P. Barfoot, 2009, “GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2007” , PG Economics Ltd, UK, Dorchester, available at http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2009globalimpactstudy.pdf.

EuropaBio factsheet: EuropaBio answers the question of the Friends of the Earth Report “Who benefits from gm crops?” with real facts and figures

[top]
 

Can GM, conventional and organic crops coexist ?

The concept of coexistence is well established, as farmers should be able to grow crops of their choice with no risk of economic loss due to activities of their neighbours. It should be noted that this is purely an economic issue, and has nothing to do with safety since these crops have undergone an extensive safety assessment before they are allowed to enter the market. Coexistence is not new. For example, it also applies to avoiding spray drift onto neighbouring crops in case of herbicide applications. Likewise, if industrial oilseed rape is grown for example, it is important that cross-pollination of oilseed rape is kept to a minimum. Also, plant breeders need to keep to a defined purity level for their seeds and manage this by ensuring a minimum separation distance between compatible varieties. Nevertheless, low levels of cross-pollination are inevitable, even over significant distances, and tolerance levels are set realistically with this in mind.

In the case of conventional and organic crops, a labelling threshold of 0.9% has been set for GM content, as long as the grower has demonstrated that they have taken reasonable precautions to prevent inter-mixing. In the industry, this is known as the adventitious presence limit. In the vast majority of cases, measured GM content falls well below the 0.9% threshold. If not, labelling is required. As long as this standard can be maintained, coexistence is perfectly possible and presents no problems. Over 10 years of experience with Bt maize in Spain has shown that farmers can manage coexistence in practice. Indeed, despite this being raised as an issue by activists, very few farmers have ever had a problem. It should be noted that some people in the organic movement would like to see a zero-tolerance level for GM in organic produce, but this is an unrealistic expectation. If it were to be introduced, it would either mean the end of organic farming, due to a lack of seed to grow their crops, or the removal of the choice of others to sow GM seed to avoid problems for farms comprising less than 5% of European farmland.

Necessary measures to ensure coexistence vary between crops and regions, and EU regulations give Member States the responsibility for taking the appropriate measures to comply with the threshold set in Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 for food/feed GM products (with the level for seeds still not agreed). The Commission also issued a Recommendation (2003/556/EC) on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices.  

For more information on progress, see "New case studies on the coexistence of GM and non GM crops in European agriculture". Technical report EUR 22102 EN, European Communities, 2006, http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22102en.pdf

[top]
 

Can GM crops help in fighting hunger in developing countries ?

Food security is one of the biggest challenges we currently face, and the solution is clear: we must find ways in which to produce more food while continuing to reduce the impact of agricultural practices have on the environment.

One of the Millennium Development Goals, committed to by the 189 UN member countries, is to halve hunger between 1990 and 2015. This is a challenging task, since world population is expected to grow by over a third (or 2.3 billion people) between 2009 and 2050. Nearly all of this growth is forecast to take place in the developing countries.  This means that feeding a world population of 9.1 billion people in 2050 would require an increase of current overall food production by some 70% (nearly 100% in some developing countries). With limited possibilities for land expansion, 90% of the growth in crop production is expected to result from higher yields and increased cropping intensity. At the same time, agricultural production needs to become more sustainable, requiring more efficient farming methods that use less land, energy, and natural resources such as water. GM technology alone will not provide all the solutions, but it provides a valuable tool that cannot be ignored. 

Campaigning groups claim that we do not need more food, only better distribution and more equitable access. Undoubtedly poverty is a major contributor to hunger; some people simply cannot afford to grow or buy enough food. Proper roads would also allow better distribution of food surpluses. However, few people would question the need for more food to be produced as the global population rises so significantly.

Crop biotechnology as a tool for development has been critically assessed by several groups of experts, and supportive statements have been made by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (http://www.fao.org/biotech/). All reports point to the essential roles that agricultural biotechnology, including GM plants, can play by improving yield, drought tolerance, post-harvest storage and improved nutrition. There is a consensus that, in order to benefit fully from these technologies, developing countries need to strengthen their political, institutional and regulatory systems. However, already there are a number of projects aimed specifically at the needs of developing countries, including "golden rice", now in the hands of the International Rice Research Institute (http://www.irri.org/) and expected to be released in 2011, the Biocassava plus project (http://biocassavaplus.org/), which aims to make this staple African food far more nutritious, and the Water Efficient Maize for Africa project (www.aatf-africa.org) developing drought tolerant maize varieties specific to local needs.

For further reading, see:

FAO (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y5160E/Y5160E00.htm) and

the Nuffield Council of Bioethics (http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/print/ourwork/gmcrops/introduction).

[top]
 

What is the approval process for GMOs in the European Union?

Every trial planting of GM crops in open fields needs special authorization (under Directive 2001/18). If the crop is to be commercially grown in Europe, it has a much lengthier assessment under the terms of the same Directive. Imports are also assessed for safety under the GM food and feed regulation (1829/2003). The main principles of the process are as follows:

1. Risk assessment is done on a case-by-case, step-by-step, and use-by-use basis by panels of independent scientists on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Each individual application is for a unique GM "event" (incorporation of a particular strand of genetic material in a defined place in the plant genome) and is assessed on the basis of its genetic makeup, pattern of expression of proteins and other components, the interaction between its novel trait(s) and a given environment, and its intended uses (food, feed, cultivation, processing etc.). The step-by-step approach means that GMOs are marketed only after they have been carefully evaluated in a contained environment, followed by experimental field releases.
2. When EFSA has completed the environmental, human and animal safety assessment, it makes its recommendation, which if positive, then forms the basis of a Draft Decision for approval, drafted by the European Commission.  This decision is then subject to a vote by a standing committee of Member States; if no decision is reached by this committee, the Decision is then considered further by the Council. In practice, this step has become entirely politicised, with a number of Member States routinely voting against approval, despite a positive recommendation from EFSA. If no decision is reached in Council via the qualified majority voting procedure, the decision then reverts to the Commission, making an already lengthy process even longer.
3. Post-release monitoring, traceability and labelling: as a general provision of the precautionary principle, monitoring plans need to be approved before issuing the marketing consent and the traceability of the product on the market is ensured by labelling and administrative records throughout the food chain. Marketing approvals are first granted for a maximum of 10 years. After this time, the event has to be resubmitted for approval.
4. Public information: in the course of the approval process, information is provided to the public, via abstracts of the technical dossiers submitted by the applicants, via opinion papers published by EFSA and via the websites of national authorities and of the European Commission in-house Joint Research Centre (JRC).
5. Subsidiarity: although generally common rules are in place to provide a European single market, responsibility for some issues may be passed back to Member States. This is the case for the issue of co-existence between non-GM, organic and GM crops. In light of the diversity of crop and land management practices across Europe, legislators considered that the Member States were in a better position to identify appropriate and effective measures for achieving co-existence, and the Commission only provided guidelines via a Recommendation (2003/556/EC).
6. Compliance with international trade rules: EU legislation is in line with the international trade requirements of WTO (it is clear, transparent and non discriminatory) and with the transboundary movement rules of the UN Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. However, the political nature of the approval process in practice has, however, led to WTO disputes because of perceived disruption of trade.

[top]
 

What do Europeans think about GMOs?

Despite stories that European consumers have "rejected" GM foods, it is many years since they have been given the opportunity to choose for themselves. Recent surveys have shown that crop biotechnology is really not an important issue for most people, and that most are much more likely to accept its use than may have been the case a decade ago.

For example, a survey carried out by GMO Compass in 2008, showed that European consumers are taking a more balanced view in light of increasing concerns about global food security. Of over 5000 respondents, nearly 84% voted for the use of all technologies to avoid a future crisis. 84% said GM crops should be an option to improve yields while protecting the environment. Only 11% voted against this option.
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/stories/360.results_gmo_compass_snapshot_poll.html

According to the most recent UK Food Standards Agency tracker survey (July 2009) on consumer attitudes to food (http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/fsatrackersurvey.pdf) suggests that when prompted, concerns about had fallen from around 40% in 2001 to 21% in 2009; if unprompted, only 3% of the respondents named GM as a concern." These figures are the lowest yet recorded by the Food Standards Agency surveys.

The latest Eurobarometer survey (2008) on “Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment” shows:

• Fewer Europeans are worried about GMOs - just 20% - down from 24% in 2004. For comparison, 23% of respondents were concerned about both loss of biodiversity and pollution from fertilizers and pesticides.
• 26% consider that there is a lack of information relating to the use of GM in farming (down from 40% in 2004). Results also show that those people who feel poorly informed are more likely to be opposed to the growing of GM crops.

The Eurobarometer survey concludes that Europeans in general tend to feel that they lack information about GMOs but at the same time they express relatively low levels of concern when compared to other environmental worries, even when prompted on the issue. Similar studies, recently conducted in the UK have shown that:

• Only 4% of UK respondents mention GM as a concern in relation to food
• Only 21% of Britons are worried about GM foods – down from 25% in 2006

These surveys show a pattern of decreasing concern about the crop biotechnology, together with a desire to be better informed.

An overview of more consumer polls on attitudes to GMOs can be found on the GMO Compass website: Opposition decreasing or acceptance increasing?

From the Eurobarometer study, climate change is the issue Europeans are most worried about and this concern is increasing (47% in 2004 to 57% in 2008). Water and air pollution are the next biggest concerns.

Click here to find out how GMOs can help address these issues...

Opinion polls of farmers across Europe show that they want to make their own decisions about growing GM crops. In 2008, in Italy, a survey of maize farmers in Lombardy, the country’s main maize growing area, showed that 67% said they would plant GM maize if allowed to. In the United Kingdom, a poll of farmers who grew GM crops as part of test trials showed that 95% would grow them if allowed to do so; of 24,000 farmers polled overall in the UK in 2008, almost half were in favour while only 15% opposed GM. In Poland, 85% of farmers agreed they should have the option of planting approved GM crops. In Spain, of 350 maize farmers asked, 83% felt farmers should have the option to plant. In countries such as France and Hungary, where bans are currently in force, farmer opinion is also supportive. In France, a 2007 survey of 400 maize farmers showed that those cultivating 62% of the maize area felt they should have the option to plant. In Hungary of 250 maize farmers asked, 53% of respondents said they wanted to plant GM maize.

[top]