Attitudes in China about Crops and Foods Developed by Biotechnology

Transgenic Bt cotton has been planted in China since 1997 and, in 2009, biosafety certificates for the commercial production of Bt rice and phytase corn were issued by the Chinese government. The public attitude in China toward agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) crops and foods has received considerable attention worldwide. We investigated the attitudes of consumers, Bt cotton farmers and scientists in China regarding GM crops and foods and the factors influencing their attitudes. Data were collected using interview surveys of consumer households, farmer households and scientists. A discrete choice approach was used to elicit the purchase intentions of the respondents. Two separate probit models were developed to examine the effect of various factors on the choices of the respondents. Bt cotton farmers had a very positive attitude because Bt cotton provided them with significant economic benefits. Chinese consumers from developed regions had a higher acceptance and willingness to pay for GM foods than consumers in other regions. The positive attitude toward GM foods by the scientific community will help to promote biotechnology in China in the future. Our survey emphasized that educational efforts made by government officials, the media and scientists can facilitate the acceptance of GM technology in China. Further educational efforts will be critical for influencing consumer attitudes and decisions of government agencies in the future. More effective educational efforts by government agencies and public media concerning the scientific facts and safety of GM foods would enhance the acceptance of GM crops in China.     

The EU’s GM crop conundrum: Did the EU policy strategy to convert EFSA GMO guidance into legislation deliver on its promises?

Efforts by the EU to improve its regulatory framework for importing GM food and feed have done nothing to make the process easier and more predictable for applicants. Subject Categories: Biotechnology & Synthetic Biology, Economics, Law & Politics, Plant Biology

The first genetically modified (GM) crops were introduced more than two decades ago and have been planted globally on more than 190 million hectares (ISAAA, 2020), a surface area larger than all the arable land in the EU. Thousands of risk assessments have consistently concluded that they are as safe as conventional crops in regard to human and animal health (Smyth et al, 2021) and many countries have been growing GM crops for years. Despite political commitments to innovation and investments into research (EC, 2010), the EU is still lagging behind in adopting this technology on a wider scale owing to diverging views among its member states, the European Commission (EC) and the European parliament. Various attempts to resolve this tension by legal and regulatory means have created the most cumbersome and byzantine regulatory system for GM crops in the world. The Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013, meant to ease the regulatory process, has made things even more complicated.

Various attempts to resolve this tension by legal and regulatory means have created the most cumbersome and byzantine regulatory system for GM crops in the world.

A major conundrum for the EU is the need to import large quantities of protein‐rich crops such as soybean to supply the continent’s livestock industry with high‐quality feed.In the light of the current Russia–Ukraine situation, which has added a layer of instability to already tense markets, the importance of the global agricultural market to ensure food security is even more pronounced.Given the high adoption rate of GM crops outside the EU, most of these imported commodities inevitably contain GM crops. Under EU law, food and feed products that contain or were produced from GM crops need an import authorisation by the European Commission (EC), which is a lengthy, costly and unpredictable process.In 2002, the EU set up a centralised review system under Regulation (EC) 178/2002 (the General Food Law Regulation) and an independent scientific body to conduct this review: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA is responsible for performing the risk assessment for food and feed regulated products, including GM crops; their advice “opinion” is used by the EC to draft a decision whether or not to authorise import. EU member states then vote whether or not to follow the EC’s draft decision. To date, not a single GM product has received a qualified majority decision for authorisation. The EC then makes the final decision based on EFSA’s risk assessment.There are many reasons why the member states disagree, mostly owing to political and economic agendas. Some members with a large and important agri‐food sector tend to vote in line with EFSA’s opinions, while others consistently vote against authorisation or abstain their vote mainly for political reasons. This ongoing disagreement has made it very difficult to establish an EU‐wide policy for agricultural biotechnology.

…the continuous proliferation, update and reinterpretation of EU requirements means that studies that were conducted in compliance with the guidelines at a particular time may no longer comply with changed requirements…

     

中国转基因水稻的研究进展及产业化问题分析

水稻在我国粮食生产和消费中占有重要地位,也是世界上最重要的粮食作物之一。水稻转基因研究已成为当前国内外植物分子生物学和作物育种研究的热点。目前我国转基因水稻研究处于国际领先水平,有望成为转基因抗虫棉之后又一个进入产业化的转基因粮食作物,这可能将在确保我国粮食安全中发挥重要贡献。从国内外转基因水稻研发概况、我国Bt抗虫水稻生物安全评价两方面综述了我国转基因水稻产业化的前景,并在此基础上对产业化提出相关建议与对策。     

Moving beyond the GM Debate

Once again, there are calls to reopen the debate on genetically modified (GM) crops. I find these calls frustrating and unnecessarily decisive. In my opinion the GM debate, on both sides, continues to hamper the urgent need to address the diverse and pressing challenges of global food security and environmental sustainability. The destructive power of the debate comes from its conflation of unrelated issues, coupled with deeply rooted misconceptions of the nature of agriculture.

This article is part of the PLOS Biology Collection “The Promise of Plant Translational Research.”

For many people, genetic modification (GM) has become the poster child for everything they consider bad about modern agriculture. It represents the domination of the food supply chain by profit-driven multinational companies. It represents the systematic replacement of important ecosystems with huge high-intensity farms growing monocultures of commodity crops. It represents humankind''s evil manipulation of Nature for personal gain and greed, at the expense of the planet and of future generations. These are important concerns. It is reasonable to be disturbed by some of the current trends in agricultural practices, with fears fuelled by past errors, such as the previous emergence in the UK of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). However, none of these issues has anything to do with GM as a technique for improving or introducing plant traits. A complete ban on the use of GM in crop development would have no impact on any of them. For as long as we imagine that GM itself is the cause of these problems, they are free to escalate unchecked.A defining question of the 21^st century is: How can we achieve a reliable, sustainable, equitable supply of nutritious food for a growing and increasingly urbanized world population in the face of climate change? This is a complex question with agricultural productivity constituting only a small part of it, and in turn, GM only a small part of that. It is essential that we move forward to address this question without being continuously sidetracked by the GM debate. How can this be achieved?First, it is necessary to move on from the well-worn logical fallacy that anything natural is good, and anything unnatural is bad. The application of this fallacy to agriculture is an excellent illustration of why it is so flawed. Plants evolved by natural selection, driven by the survival of the fittest. As a result, naturally, they are defended to the hilt from herbivores of all kinds, including humans. We know this. No one sends their children into the woods saying “Eat anything you find. It''s all natural, so it must be good for you.” The seeds of plants are particularly well protected, because they are, of course, the plant''s children, their ticket to posterity. Seed is therefore usually tough, indigestible, minimally resourced, and often laced with toxins. Yet plant seeds are now our major source of calories. The cereal crops we eat bear little resemblance to their naturally selected ancestors, and the environments in which we grow them are equally highly manipulated and engineered by us. We have, over the last 10,000 years, bred out of our main food plants all kinds of survival strategies that natural selection put in. This has drastically reduced their competitiveness in nature, but equally dramatically increased their utility in feeding us. Agriculture is the invention of humans. It is the deliberate manipulation of plants (and animals) and the environment in which they grow to provide food for us. The imperative is not that we should stop interfering with nature, but that we should interfere in the best way possible to provide a reliable, sustainable, equitable supply of nutritious food. To do this we need to understand how nature works. That''s what science is all about.This is easy to say, but concepts of the inherent goodness of Nature, and the inherent dangers of human interventions through science, are deeply ingrained in the way many people think, particularly in the context of food. This is an understandable response to concerns over the industrialization and unsustainable intensification of agriculture described above. You only have to walk down the aisles of a supermarket to see that “all natural” and “nothing artificial” sells things. These words sell products because they are so strongly culturally associated with environmental sustainability and well-being, exploiting people''s interest in protecting the environment and their health. However, many of the products people think of as natural, such as cereal crops, are profoundly unnatural and wouldn''t exist without human intervention; and many things people think of as artificial, such as “chemicals,” can be made with no human involvement at all. Similarly, many “natural” things are extremely bad news, such as aflatoxins, and many “artificial” things are widely accepted to be an extremely good idea, such as cereal crops (again). The only way to determine whether something is environmentally sustainable or healthy is to do the science and find out. Guessing based on cultural norms, amplified by aggressive marketing strategies is understandable, but will not deliver the desired outcome: a sustainable supply of healthy food. People need to be empowered to make decisions in a different way. For example, in the UK there is now a well-established health wheel traffic light system on foods in supermarkets, indicating through a simple graphic the sugar, fat, salt, and calorific content of the product. Perhaps there could be a similar sustainability wheel, building on such initiatives as Leaf (for Linking Environment and Farming – a UK organization that promotes sustainable food and farming and that identifies food produced to high environmental standards to consumers with a Leaf logo) [1]. This could be combined with the stricter application of advertising standards, preventing the fostering of misleading claims about what counts as “natural” and of misleading implications about the associated health and environmental benefits.Second, we need to get past the idea that GM, as a technique for crop genetic improvement, is specifically and generically different from other approaches, including conventional selective breeding. GM involves introducing a gene directly into the genome of an organism. The introduced gene can be one found in other members of that species or it could be from a different species. The most distinctive generic thing about a GM crop, in comparison to one produced by conventional selective breeding, would therefore appear to be the insertion of a piece of DNA into its genome, a process that is certainly not unique to GM crops. Even the movement of genes between species is not GM-specific, and indeed GM crops need not be modified with genes from a different species. Many viruses can insert their genomes into that of their host as a normal part of their life cycle. These viral sequences, and many related genetic elements, such as retroposons, accumulate over evolutionary time and can continue to move about the genomes of their hosts, creating new DNA insertion sites. Thus, every conventionally bred rice crispy or cornflake you had for breakfast probably differs from every other one by the insertion of a piece of DNA at an unknown site in its genome.There is really nothing generic to be said about GM as a plant breeding technique. Almost all the media reports purporting to be about the effects of GM are in fact about effects of the specific trait that has been introduced into the GM crop. Currently, there are only two widely deployed GM traits: herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. Concerns purporting to be about GM are almost all about one or other of these traits. For example, a large, farm-scale evaluation of the environmental impacts of three herbicide-tolerant GM crops conducted in the UK between 1999 and 2006 [2] was widely reported as demonstrating that GM is bad for wildlife. What in fact it showed was that effective weed control is bad for wildlife. Weeds are required to support biodiversity in agricultural environments, and are currently under threat from winter planting regimes, non-GM herbicide-tolerant crops, and a range of increasingly sophisticated weed control strategies. Banning GM crops will not address this problem. It is wrong to imply that growing GM crops, rather than effective weed control, is the cause of negative effects on biodiversity. It is not because a crop is GM that weeds are reduced; many GM crops have no impact on weeds at all. It is because a crop, GM or otherwise, is herbicide tolerant and sprayed with weed killers that reduce weed populations. The claim that biodiversity is reduced because a GM crop was grown detracts attention from the real issue, namely how to balance the positive effects of weeds in supporting biodiversity with their negative impacts on agricultural productivity.This confusion between the effects of a new trait and the method by which it has been introduced is enshrined in the way new crops are licensed for commercial release in many countries. In the European Union (EU), a new herbicide-tolerant GM crop, produced by introducing a single gene conferring herbicide tolerance, must go through a lengthy procedure of testing aimed at assessing its potential health and environmental impacts [3]. Such an assessment would include concerns about impacts on wildlife, as described above, and about the generation of so-called super weeds by out-crossing of the GM crop to wild relatives or caused by the over-use of herbicides. Meanwhile, a herbicide-tolerant crop produced by mutation of a single endogenous gene has no such testing, and the breeders need only to demonstrate that it is stable and significantly different from already registered crops. All the environmental concerns associated with GM herbicide tolerance are equally applicable to non-GM herbicide tolerance. There are also considerable agronomic and environmental benefits that could accrue from herbicide tolerant crops, such as reduced soil erosion through reduced need for ploughing [4]. These need to be weighed against the risks and an appropriate decision reached. This decision is about weed control, not about GM. In my opinion, there is therefore no justification for considering GM vs non-GM herbicide tolerant crops differently. Their assessment, from a regulatory viewpoint and in terms of their environmental impact, should be based on the distinctive trait they carry.The GM-specific regulatory system currently in place creates huge financial barriers for GM crop introduction, which ironically is one of the main reasons why almost the only applications in the field today are driven by big business. These days, the cost of developing a GM crop is relatively affordable. Meanwhile, non-GM crops, sometimes with new traits, are released with relatively little scrutiny of their impacts on the environment or on food safety. This is increasingly an issue as we continue to develop new and ever more sophisticated ways to introduce desirable traits into crops, for example by genomic assisted breeding or by genome editing [5]. These new tools provide exciting and much needed opportunities for crop genetic improvement, but in my view they also demand a more sensible licensing system that assesses all new crops based on the traits they carry rather than on the method by which they were introduced [5],[6].The current system does little to protect the environment or the food chain and is ill-equipped to cope with the new approaches to plant breeding now coming on line. A trait-based system, bringing a proportional level of scrutiny to all crops that carry a new trait, could provide the checks and balances that should go hand in hand with innovation. We definitely need crop genetic improvement [4], using whatever method is best, and it is precisely because we do that we also need an evidence-based and proportional system for assessing new crops for environmental and health impacts.A related issue, which will be similarly challenged by new genetic improvement techniques, is that of patent protection for crops. While conventionally bred crops can be protected by various means, such “variety” protection systems include exemptions for farmers that permit them to save seed for next year''s planting and for breeders to include the variety in breeding programmes. In contrast, GM crops can be protected by so-called utility patents, which can protect the use of a specific gene to confer a trait. These patents are much more restrictive and prohibit both seed saving by farmers and exemptions for plant breeders. The harmonisation of the crop variety licensing system to focus on novel traits, however introduced, could reasonably be widened to include an examination of the patent protection system for such traits. If the licensing system were to become less expensive, the argument for restrictive utility patents on such traits is reduced.We now have a wealth of opportunities for crop genetic improvement, with an impressive arsenal of tools and techniques available. To deploy these effectively, we need to move well beyond the GM debate to a much wider debate about food production. What methods of farming provide reliable and high yields in a sustainable way? What is the role of multinational companies in delivering food security? What political and societal changes are needed to drive more equitable food distribution? How can waste be reduced? These are big complex questions with big complex answers and no simple dogmatic solution. No single farming method or crop improvement technique is a panacea, nor is it the cause of the problem. Such complex problems with correspondingly complex and multifaceted solutions are difficult. They don''t make rousing campaign slogans or eye-catching tabloid headlines, but we have got to find a way to address them, in all their complexity.The most frustrating thing about this situation is that almost everyone wants the same outcome: a reliable, sustainable, equitable supply of nutritious food. For issues this big, there will of course be differences of opinion about how to move forward, what to prioritise, and how to decide. These are important areas for debate. GM, as a technique, is not.     

Biosafety management and commercial use of genetically modified crops in China

As a developing country with relatively limited arable land, China is making great efforts for development and use of genetically modified (GM) crops to boost agricultural productivity. Many GM crop varieties have been developed in China in recent years; in particular, China is playing a leading role in development of insect-resistant GM rice lines. To ensure the safe use of GM crops, biosafety risk assessments are required as an important part of the regulatory oversight of such products. With over 20 years of nationwide promotion of agricultural biotechnology, a relatively well-developed regulatory system for risk assessment and management of GM plants has been developed that establishes a firm basis for safe use of GM crops. So far, a total of seven GM crops involving ten events have been approved for commercial planting, and 5 GM crops with a total of 37 events have been approved for import as processing material in China. However, currently only insect-resistant Bt cotton and disease-resistant papaya have been commercially planted on a large scale. The planting of Bt cotton and disease-resistant papaya have provided efficient protection against cotton bollworms and Papaya ringspot virus (PRSV), respectively. As a consequence, chemical application to these crops has been significantly reduced, enhancing farm income while reducing human and non-target organism exposure to toxic chemicals. This article provides useful information for the colleagues, in particular for them whose mother tongue is not Chinese, to clearly understand the biosafety regulation and commercial use of genetically modified crops in China.     

Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: A review of options for food security

Since two decades ago, when the first GM crops were introduced, there have increasingly been hot debates on the applications of gene manipulation. Currently, the development of GM crop varieties has raised a wide range of new legal, ethical and economic questions in agriculture. There is a growing body of literature reflecting the socio-economic and environmental impacts of GM crops which aims to criticize their value for farming systems. While organic crops are promoted as environmentally-friendly products in developed countries, they have provoked great controversy in developing countries facing food security and a low agricultural productivity. Discussion has been especially vigorous when organic farming was introduced as an alternative method. There are in fact, a few tradeoffs in developing countries. On the one hand, farmers are encouraged to accept and implement GM crops because of their higher productivity, while on the other hand, organic farming is encouraged because of socio-economic and environmental considerations. A crucial question facing such countries is therefore, whether GM crops can co-exist with organic farming. This paper aims to review the main considerations and tradeoffs.     

Removing politics from innovations that improve food security

Genetically modified (GM) organisms and crops have been a feature of food production for over 30 years. Despite extensive science-based risk assessment, the public and many politicians remain concerned with the genetic manipulation of crops, particularly food crops. Many governments have addressed public concern through biosafety legislation and regulatory frameworks that identify and regulate risks to ensure human health and environmental safety. These domestic regulatory frameworks align to international scientific risk assessment methodologies on a case-by-case basis. Regulatory agencies in 70 countries around the world have conducted in excess of 4400 risk assessments, all reaching the same conclusion: GM crops and foods that have been assessed provide no greater risk to human health or the environment than non-GM crops and foods. Yet, while the science regarding the safety of GM crops and food appears conclusive and societal benefits have been globally demonstrated, the use of innovative products have only contributed minimal improvements to global food security. Regrettably, politically-motivated regulatory barriers are currently being implemented with the next genomic innovation, genome editing, the implications of which are also discussed in this article. A decade of reduced global food insecurity was witnessed from 2005 to 2015, but regrettably, the figure has subsequently risen. Why is this the case? Reasons have been attributed to climate variability, biotic and abiotic stresses, lack of access to innovative technologies and political interference in decision making processes. This commentary highlights how political interference in the regulatory approval process of GM crops is adversely affecting the adoption of innovative, yield enhancing crop varieties, thereby limiting food security opportunities in food insecure economies.

     

Potential and attainable food production and food security in different regions

Growing prosperity in the South is accompanied by human diets that will claim more natural resources per capita. This reality, combined with growing populations, may raise the global demand for food crops two- to four-fold within two generations. Considering the large volume of natural resources and potential crop yields, it seems that this demand can be met smoothly. However, this is a fallacy for the following reasons. (i) Geographic regions differ widely in their potential food security: policy choices for agricultural use of natural resources are limited in Asia. For example, to ensure national self-sufficiency and food security, most of the suitable land (China) and nearly all of the surface water (India) are needed. Degradation restricts options further. (ii) The attainable level of agricultural production depends also on socio-economic conditions. Extensive poverty keeps the attainable food production too low to achieve food security, even when the yield gap is wide, as in Africa. (iii) Bio-energy, non-food crops and nature compete with food crops for natural resources. Global and regional food security are attainable, but only with major efforts. Strategies to achieve alternative aims will be discussed. <br>     

转Bt基因抗虫作物对非靶标害虫的影响

转基因作物的长期大面积种植, 在为农业生产带来惠益的同时, 对农业生态系统的健康和稳定可能会产生潜在的影响。转基因作物表达的Bt蛋白对靶标害虫起到较好的控制效果, 而对Bt蛋白不敏感的非靶标害虫种群可能会迅速发展起来, 对作物造成为害。随着抗虫转基因作物的连续多年种植, 科学家们对于田间杀虫剂施用量的增减看法不尽一致。通过总结已有的研究报道, 本文以Bt玉米和Bt棉花为例, 分析了大田中非靶标害虫暴发的现状, 以及暴发的主要原因(如杀虫剂的使用、害虫天敌减少和物种替代)。在生产实践中, 抗虫作物的长期大面积释放导致广谱杀虫剂施用量减少, 田间非靶标害虫数量上升。因此今后需要继续开展更多的研究来综合评估种植转Bt基因作物产生的长期潜在影响, 优化害虫防治措施, 避免非靶标害虫暴发。     

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops

Background

Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, controversies about this technology continue. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for widespread public suspicion.

Objective

We carry out a meta-analysis of the agronomic and economic impacts of GM crops to consolidate the evidence.

Data Sources

Original studies for inclusion were identified through keyword searches in ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, EconLit, and AgEcon Search.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Studies were included when they build on primary data from farm surveys or field trials anywhere in the world, and when they report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. In total, 147 original studies were included.

Synthesis Methods

Analysis of mean impacts and meta-regressions to examine factors that influence outcomes.

Results

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

Limitations

Several of the original studies did not report sample sizes and measures of variance.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.     

Prevalence and Correlates of Food Insecurity among Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon: Data from a Household Survey

Lebanon hosts the highest per capita refugee concentration worldwide. The Palestinian presence in Lebanon dates from 1948 and they remain a marginalized population. No information on their food security status has been reported previously. A survey of a representative sample of Palestinian refugee households in Lebanon (n = 2501) was conducted using a stratified two stage cluster sampling approach. We measured food insecurity using a modified USDA household food security module, locally validated. We collected data on household demographic, socioeconomic, health, housing, coping strategies and household intake of food groups and analysed these by food security status. About 41% (CI: 39-43) of households reported being food insecure and 20% (CI: 18-22) severely food insecure. Poor households were more likely to be severely food insecure (OR 1.41 (1.06-1.86)) while higher education of the head of household was significantly associated with protection against severe food insecurity (OR 0.66 (0.52-0.84)). Additionally, higher food expenditure and possession of food-related assets were significantly associated with food security (OR 0.93 (0.89-0.97) and OR 0.74 (0.59-0.92), respectively). After adjusting for confounders, households where at least one member suffered from an acute illness remained significantly more likely to be severely food insecure (OR 1.31(1.02-1.66)), as were households whose proxy respondent reported poor mental health (OR 2.64 (2.07-3.38)) and poor self-reported health (OR 1.62 (1.22-2.13). Severely food insecure households were more likely to eat cheaper foods when compared to non-severely food insecure households (p<0.001) and were more likely to rely on gifts (p<0.001) or welfare (p<0.001). They were also more likely to have exhausted all coping strategies, indicating significantly more frequently that they could not do anything (p = 0.0102). Food insecurity is a significant problem among Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and is likely to be exacerbated at this time when the Syrian crisis amplifies the problem.     

转基因作物的食用与环境安全性问题及其对策

自转基因技术研发和商业化生产以来,针对转基因作物的食用安全性和环境安全性问题一直是公众争论的焦点。面对全球粮食安全形势的严峻压力,如何使公众对转基因技术及其产品的客观性保持一种科学性的认识,是摆在各国(特别是发展中国家)政府和科学家面前不可忽视的课题。本文从食品和环境两个方面简要介绍了转基因作物的安全性问题,旨在还原转基因技术的科学真实性,并简要提出转基因作物的安全性对策。     

Global capture of crop biotechnology in developing world over a decade

There is an urgent need for the advancement of agricultural technology (e.g. crop biotechnology or genetic modification (GM) technology), particularly, to address food security problem, to fight against hunger and poverty crisis and to ensure sustainable agricultural production in developing countries. Over the past decade, the adoption of GM technology on a commercial basis has increased steadily around the world with a significant impact in terms of socio-economic, environment and human health benefits. However, GM technology is still surrounded by controversial debates with several factors hindering the adoption of GM crops. This paper reviews current literatures on commercial production of GM crops, and assesses the benefits and constraints associated with adoption of GM crops in developing countries in the last 15 years. This article provides policy implication towards advancing the development and adoption of GM technology in developing countries and concludes with summary of key points discussed.     

Consideration of familiarity accumulated in the confined field trials for environmental risk assessment of genetically modified soybean (Glycine max) in Japan

To date, there have been 160 regulatory approvals for environmental safety in Japan for the major genetically modified (GM) crops, including corn, soybean, canola and cotton. Confined field trials (CFTs) have been conducted in Japan for all single events, which contain various traits. The accumulated information from these previously conducted CFTs, as well as the agronomic field study data from other countries, provides a rich source of information to establish “familiarity” with the crops. This familiarity can be defined as the knowledge gained through experience over time, and used to inform the environmental risk assessments (ERA) of new GM crops in Japan. In this paper, we compiled agronomic data from the CFTs performed in Japan for 11 GM soybean events which obtained food, feed and environmental safety approvals from regulatory agencies in Japan. These CFTs were conducted by multiple developers according to Japan regulations to support the ERA of these GM soybean, covering standard measurement endpoints evaluated across developers in Japan. With this dataset, we demonstrate how familiarity gained from the CFTs of GM soybeans in Japan can be used to inform on the ERA of new GM soybean events. By leveraging this concept of familiarity, we discuss potential enhancements to the ERA process for GM soybean events in Japan.

     

Agricultural diversification as an important strategy for achieving food security in Africa

Farmers in Africa have long adapted to climatic and other risks by diversifying their farming activities. Using a multi‐scale approach, we explore the relationship between farming diversity and food security and the diversification potential of African agriculture and its limits on the household and continental scale. On the household scale, we use agricultural surveys from more than 28,000 households located in 18 African countries. In a next step, we use the relationship between rainfall, rainfall variability, and farming diversity to determine the available diversification options for farmers on the continental scale. On the household scale, we show that households with greater farming diversity are more successful in meeting their consumption needs, but only up to a certain level of diversity per ha cropland and more often if food can be purchased from off‐farm income or income from farm sales. More diverse farming systems can contribute to household food security; however, the relationship is influenced by other factors, for example, the market orientation of a household, livestock ownership, nonagricultural employment opportunities, and available land resources. On the continental scale, the greatest opportunities for diversification of food crops, cash crops, and livestock are located in areas with 500–1,000 mm annual rainfall and 17%–22% rainfall variability. Forty‐three percent of the African cropland lacks these opportunities at present which may hamper the ability of agricultural systems to respond to climate change. While sustainable intensification practices that increase yields have received most attention to date, our study suggests that a shift in the research and policy paradigm toward agricultural diversification options may be necessary.     

Commercializing genetically modified crops under EU regulations: objectives and barriers

Agriculture faces serious problems in feeding 9 billion people by 2050: production must be increased and ecosystem services maintained under conditions for growing crops that are predicted to worsen in many parts of the world. A proposed solution is sustainable intensification of agriculture, whereby yields are increased on land that is currently cultivated, so sparing land to deliver other ecosystem services. Genetically modified (GM) crops are already contributing to sustainable intensification through higher yields and lower environmental impacts, and have potential to deliver further significant improvements. Despite their widespread successful use elsewhere, the European Union (EU) has been slow to introduce GM crops: decisions on applications to import GM commodities are lengthy, and decision-making on applications to cultivate GM crops has virtually ceased. Delayed import approvals result in economic losses, particularly in the EU itself as a result of higher commodity prices. Failure to grant cultivation approvals costs EU farmers opportunities to reduce inputs, and results in loss of agricultural research and development from the EU to countries such as the United States and China. Delayed decision-making in the EU ostensibly results from scientific uncertainty about the effects of using GM crops; however, scientific uncertainty may be a means to justify a political decision to restrict cultivation of GM crops in the EU. The problems associated with delayed decision-making will not improve until there is clarity about the EU's agricultural policy objectives, and whether the use of GM crops will be permitted to contribute to achieving those objectives.     

Insect-resistant biotech crops and their impacts on beneficial arthropods

With a projected population of 10 billion by 2050, an immediate priority for agriculture is to achieve increased crop yields in a sustainable and cost-effective way. The concept of using a transgenic approach was realized in the mid-1990s with the commercial introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops. By 2010, the global value of the seed alone was US $11.2 billion, with commercial biotech maize, soya bean grain and cotton valued at approximately US $150 billion. In recent years, it has become evident that insect-resistant crops expressing δ-endotoxin genes from Bacillus thuringiensis have made a significant beneficial impact on global agriculture, not least in terms of pest reduction and improved quality. However, because of the potential for pest populations to evolve resistance, and owing to lack of effective control of homopteran pests, alternative strategies are being developed. Some of these are based on Bacillus spp. or other insect pathogens, while others are based on the use of plant- and animal-derived genes. However, if such approaches are to play a useful role in crop protection, it is desirable that they do not have a negative impact on beneficial organisms at higher trophic levels thus affecting the functioning of the agro-ecosystem. This widely held concern over the ecological impacts of GM crops has led to the extensive examination of the potential effects of a range of transgene proteins on non-target and beneficial insects. The findings to date with respect to both commercial and experimental GM crops expressing anti-insect genes are discussed here, with particular emphasis on insect predators and parasitoids.     

Genetically modified crops and small-scale farmers: main opportunities and challenges

Although some important features of genetically modified (GM) crops such as insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, and drought tolerance might seem to be beneficial for small-scale farmers, the adoption of GM technology by smallholders is still slight. Identifying pros and cons of using this technology is important to understand the impacts of GM crops on these farmers. This article reviews the main opportunities and challenges of GM crops for small-scale farmers in developing countries. The most significant advantages of GM crops include being independent to farm size, environment protection, improvement of occupational health issues, and the potential of bio-fortified crops to reduce malnutrition. Challenges faced by small-scale farmers for adoption of GM crops comprise availability and accessibility of GM crop seeds, seed dissemination and price, and the lack of adequate information. In addition, R&D and production costs in using GM crops make it difficult for these farmers to adopt the use of these crops. Moreover, intellectual property right regulations may deprive resource poor farmers from the advantages of GM technology. Finally, concerns on socio-economic and environment safety issues are also addressed in this paper.     

Novel and potential application of cryopreservation to plant genetic transformation

The world population now is 6.7 billion and is predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050. Such a rapid growing population has tremendously increased the challenge for food security. Obviously, it is impossible for traditional agriculture to ensure the food security, while plant biotechnology offers considerable potential to realize this goal. Over the last 15 years, great benefits have been brought to sustainable agriculture by commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops. Further development of new GM crops will with no doubt contribute to meeting the requirements for food by the increasing population. The present article provides updated comprehensive information on novel and potential application of cryopreservation to genetic transformation. The major progresses that have been achieved in this subject include (1), long-term storage of a large number of valuable plant genes, which offers a good potential for further development of novel cultivars by genetic transformation; (2), retention of regenerative capacity of embryogenic tissues and protoplasts, which ensures efficient plant regeneration system for genetic transformation; (3), improvement of transformation efficiency and plant regeneration of transformed cells; (4), long-term preservation of transgenic materials with stable expression of transgenes and productive ability of recombinant proteins, which allows transgenic materials to be stored in a safe manner before being analyzed and evaluated, and allows establishment of stable seed stocks for commercial production of homologous proteins. Data provided in this article clearly demonstrate that cryo-technique has an important role to play in the whole chain of genetic transformation. Further studies coupling cryotechnique and genetic transformation are expected to significantly improve development of new GM crops.