Genetically modified (GM) traits can be valuable and the discussion around them should be based on facts and in a case-by-case approach, according to an Ethiopian geneticist doing his postdoctoral research at Aarhus University in Denmark.

A recent report by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service welcoming the Government of Ethiopia’s (GOE) approval of commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) cotton and confined field trail on GM maize has ignited a public debate over deployment of GM seeds. With generic discussions focusing on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) collectively rather than individual GM traits, opinions are as divided as one might expect. In addition, fundamental misconceptions appear to prevail inter-twined with some facts.
The author of this article is fundamentally in favor of agricultural biotechnology in which GM is a component. As an additional tool at the disposal of plant and animal breeders, there are things breeders can do with GM, which cannot, or can only be done with great difficulty, by other means. Transfer of specific identified genetic variants (or even whole genes) between species or distant varieties/breeds is one example. The genome of organisms can be altered to contain such genetic variants so that the genetically modified organism (GMO) can express the desired trait, which could, for instance, be drought-tolerance. In principle, this could allow increased yield and lower production costs, which translates to increased farm income. However, as in any tool, moving a GM trait into a certain production system should be evaluated for its relevance and potential impacts across a wide range of perspectives applicable to the specific production environment. While acknowledging the fact that whether or not to deploy GM traits must, in the end, be decision citizens as a whole need to discuss, it is argued here that a case-by-case conversation on individual GM varieties and traits rather than a wholesale conclusion on GMOs is in the public’s best interest. Furthermore, such discussions require presenting the public with scientific facts rather than promoting myths and misconceptions.

Thousands of years of genome alterations

A typical misconception is the assumption that altering the genomes of plants and animals begun with the emergence of GM in recent decades. In fact, people have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for thousands of years starting from domestication through to traditional selection and modern-day breeding. In what can be regarded as evolution fast-forwarded, artificial selection has led to the development of a wide variety of crops and breeds of animals. This is achieved by causing a gradual increase in the frequencies of naturally occurring favorable genetic variants in the population.
In recent decades, however, advances in genetic engineering have allowed direct genetic modification (GM) of organisms allowing precise control over the genetic changes introduced into an organism like the aforementioned example of transfer of specifically identified variants. Agricultural applications of GM have relatively advanced in crop production in comparison to animal farming. Most dominant modifications so far include crops modified to express the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin- a natural insecticide, and crops modified to herbicide tolerance (HT). These modifications or gene introgressions can be made on different varieties of various crops. As of 2018, 191.7 million hectares of GM crops were planted by up to 17 million farmers in 26 countries.

Ethiopia is not a pioneer in Africa!
An additional misconception that should be untangled from the ongoing conversation is one that alludes to the GOE’s approval of a GM crop as a “breakaway” position from an “African consensus” on the ban against GM. Some going as far as speculating the decision might cost the country’s “Pan-African environmental leadership”. Whether or not Ethiopia has such a “leadership” in the first place is debatable in itself, but nothing can be further from the truth than assuming the decision as a “break-away” from African consensus on GM ban. Neither is Ethiopia an African pioneer to approve GM crops nor is there a continent-wide consensus over the ban. GM crops have been commercially cultivated in Africa since as early as 1998. Commercial cultivation in South Africa begun in 1998 reaching 2.1 million hectares of land covered with biotech maize, including Bt maize, by 2014. Burkina Faso and Egypt followed in 2008. Sudan initiated commercial GM cotton in 2012 and by the end of 2018 had 0.2 million hectares of land covered with biotech crops, a significant part of which was Bt cotton. Other African countries were conducting trials on GM crops with approvals for commercial cultivation widely expected soon. Kenya, for instance, had already approved field trials for Bt maize back in 2016. In 2019, the Kenyan government further granted approval for Bt cotton cultivation, in a move welcomed by its agricultural research community. There appears to be a tendency to equate The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, adopted on 29th January 2000, as a consensus on a collective ban against GMOs. The Protocol is an international agreement which aims to ensure the safe handling, transport, and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology on the precautionary principle (PP). Opponents often invoke the PP to justify a ban on GM, but proponents see these as selective applications of the PP.

GM can be a valuable tool but is no cure-all
Proponents of GM argue that adoption can lead to increased yields, decreased insecticide applications, reduced drudgery, and the use of environmentally friendly herbicides. Several studies have reported and quantified such benefits. Based on a meta-analysis of publications from several countries on the farm-level costs and benefits of GM cotton and maize, Finger et al (2011) conclude that adoption of the GM crops led on average to higher economic performance. Another meta-study published in 2014 estimates a 22% increase in global yield from GM crops while reducing pesticide (active ingredient) usage by 37% and environmental impact (insecticide and herbicide use) by 18%. For countries with foreign currency bottlenecks like Ethiopia, reduced usage of inputs such as pesticide, insecticide, and herbicide translate to substantial foreign currency savings. Opponents of GM who argue that GM crops tend to benefit the better off and do not accommodate the resource-poor farmers often challenge such reports. However, studies at smallholder levels too appear to indicate beneficial effects for some GM varieties. For instance, a study in South Africa showed that laborsaving benefits of Bt- and HT- maize varieties made them particularly preferable among smallholder women. A 2013 review by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) indicates that nearly all available peer-reviewed publications on Bt cotton in South Africa (mainly focusing on smallholder farmers) report yield increase with the use of Bt cotton compared to conventional varieties. Similar success stories are reported for Bt cotton in Burkina Faso. Carefully and selectively deployed, GM traits have the potential to improve productivity and enhance food security. GM also offers an adaptive capacity against an increasingly unpredictable future.
However, there are limitations to how much we can do with GM traits. There were instances where some varieties with GM traits added no value compared to the conventional varieties under specific constraints. For instance, South Africa once rejected a GM maize variety developed by the US giant Monsanto after studies showed statistically insignificant superiority compared to the conventional maize in water-limited conditions despite Monsanto’s claim of improved drought-tolerance. This could be variety-specific shortcomings and might not be taken as an inherent limitation of GM.
However, inherent challenges exist too. So far, only a handful of traits are moved around through GM and these are mostly related to tolerance to biotic and abiotic challenges. For some of the most important yield traits, it will be very difficult to identify suitable candidate variants to move around owing to the underlying oligo- or poly-genic control. Thus, GM will have to integrate with conventional breeding, which will continue to provide the bulk of the genetic gain.

Careful evaluation of possible impacts
Many concerns have been raised against GM crops but the facts must be untangled from the misconceptions. One important concern among the public has been over the safety of consuming GM-sourced foods. So far, studies by national and international organizations reveal no demonstrated toxic or nutritionally harmful effects of foods derived from any of the widely available GM crops. The official position of the World Health Organization states: “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.”

Additionally, there are legitimate concerns related to control of patented GM crops by corporations, which dis-advantages smallholders who tend to save and re-use seeds. “Technology fee”, through patents tend to increase GM seed prices over conventional varieties. However, it should be noted that the same problem applies to some conventional hybrid seeds that are patented by private companies. In the author’s opinion, this is precisely why national agricultural research institutions, as well as their international partners, must leave the back seat and take center stage in the GM R&D to effectively prevent this technology from being a private sector monopoly. Public research institutions can, through research, be able to develop GM seeds using genes in the public domain. Additionally, public-private partnership models can be adopted to ensure resource-poor farmers’ access to transgenic traits in developing countries. Public-private crop breeding initiatives in South Africa and similar pilot projects in Kenya can be good models to scale-out. The adoption of GM crops might also negatively affect export to countries where such products might not be marketed. Thus deployment should be carefully aligned with each country’s agricultural export priorities.

The most pressing concern raised against commercial cultivation of GM crops is the possibility of transgenic contaminations to non-GM varieties, thus threatening biodiversity. Transgenic contamination from the Bt maize in Mexico has been a popular case.
In the author’s view, this calls for immense caution but does not warrant a complete ban. Technical measures can be put in place to minimize risks. For instance, various spatial and time segregation measures of coexistence can be adopted as seen in some European countries. With spatial measures, some countries establish buffer zones between GM and non-GM farms with specifics varying to individual species and between the countries. Time segregation entails to the time difference between cultivating GM and non-GM varieties of the same crop on the same or neighboring lands. For example, some European countries insist that after cultivating GM maize, farmers must wait between one and 10 years before growing non-GM maize on the same field. Others require off-season planting of GM crops to avoid cross-pollination. However, keeping crops free from transgenic contamination requires constant effort throughout the entire value chain, not just at the farm level. Countries have been putting regulations to this effect including labeling of GM products. However, none of these measures can be adequately implemented in the absence of effective and functional regulatory institutions.

Conclusion
GM can be a valuable tool for productivity improvement. Merits and impacts should be evaluated for individual GM varieties on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket ban. National agricultural research systems should be engaged in GM R&D to prevent this tool from being a private sector monopoly. Effective and functional regulatory institutions are indispensable.

Main Image: A compound salad at Chimaki Bet in the Legahar area of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Observer.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. Please cite Ethiopia Observer prominently and link clearly to the original article if you republish. If you have any queries, please contact us at ethiopiaobserver@protonmail.com. Check individual images for licensing details.