Crop management and agronomic context of the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops

The Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops (GMHT) were conducted in the UK from 2000 to 2002 on beet (sugar and fodder), spring oilseed rape and forage maize. The management of the crops studied is described and compared with current conventional commercial practice. The distribution of field sites adequately represented the areas currently growing these crops, and the sample contained sites operated at a range of management intensities, including low intensity. Herbicide inputs were audited, and the active ingredients used and the rates and the timings of applications compared well with current practice for both GMHT and conventional crops. Inputs on sugar beet were lower than, and inputs on spring oilseed rape and forage maize were consistent with, national averages. Regression analysis of herbicide-application strategies and weed emergence showed that inputs applied by farmers increased with weed densities in beet and forage maize. GMHT crops generally received only one herbicide active ingredient per crop, later and fewer herbicide sprays and less active ingredient (for beet and maize) than the conventional treatments. The audit of inputs found no evidence of bias.     

Probability functions to build composite indicators: A methodology to measure environmental impacts of genetically modified crops

There is an on-going debate on the environmental effects of genetically modified crops to which this paper aims to contribute. First, data on environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) and conventional crops are collected from peer-reviewed journals, and secondly an analysis is conducted in order to examine which crop type is less harmful for the environment. Published data on environmental impacts are measured using an array of indicators, and their analysis requires their normalisation and aggregation. Taking advantage of composite indicators literature, this paper builds composite indicators to measure the impact of GM and conventional crops in three dimensions: (1) non-target key species richness, (2) pesticide use, and (3) aggregated environmental impact. The comparison between the three composite indicators for both crop types allows us to establish not only a ranking to elucidate which crop is more convenient for the environment but the probability that one crop type outperforms the other from an environmental perspective. Results show that GM crops tend to cause lower environmental impacts than conventional crops for the analysed indicators.     

Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. I. Soil-surface-active invertebrates

The effects of herbicide management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) beet, maize and spring oilseed rape on the abundance and diversity of soil-surface-active invertebrates were assessed. Most effects did not differ between years, environmental zones or initial seedbanks or between sugar and fodder beet. This suggests that the results may be treated as generally applicable to agricultural situations throughout the UK for these crops. The direction of the effects was evenly balanced between increases and decreases in counts in the GMHT compared with the conventional treatment. Most effects involving a greater capture in the GMHT treatments occurred in maize, whereas most effects involving a smaller capture were in beet and spring oilseed rape. Differences between GMHT and conventional crop herbicide management had a significant effect on the capture of most surface-active invertebrate species and higher taxa tested in at least one crop, and these differences reflected the phenology and ecology of the invertebrates. Counts of carabids that feed on weed seeds were smaller in GMHT beet and spring oilseed rape but larger in GMHT maize. In contrast, collembolan detritivore counts were significantly larger under GMHT crop management.     

转基因耐除草剂作物的环境风险及管理

自1996年第1例转基因作物在美国商业化种植, 其在全球的种植面积一直处于持续、快速增长的趋势。2010年, 全球转基因作物种植总面积达1.48×10⁸ hm², 所种植的转基因作物主要是耐除草剂和抗虫作物, 其中耐除草剂作物占种植总面积的81%。耐除草剂作物的种植为杂草的高效控制提供了新的手段, 但其可能带来的生态环境风险也引起了全世界各国的广泛关注和争议。该文在总结归纳前人研究的基础上, 针对耐除草剂作物的基因漂移、杂草化及对生物多样性的影响等当前人们普遍关注的环境风险问题, 系统讨论了相关的风险评价程序和方法, 概括和分析了当前耐除草剂作物的环境风险研究进展和管理措施, 以期为我国转基因耐除草剂作物的开发、风险评价及管理提供依据。     

Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. II. Within-field epigeal and aerial arthropods

The effects of the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops on the abundances of aerial and epigeal arthropods were assessed in 66 beet, 68 maize and 67 spring oilseed rape sites as part of the Farm Scale Evaluations of GMHT crops. Most higher taxa were insensitive to differences between GMHT and conventional weed management, but significant effects were found on the abundance of at least one group within each taxon studied. Numbers of butterflies in beet and spring oilseed rape and of Heteroptera and bees in beet were smaller under the relevant GMHT crop management, whereas the abundance of Collembola was consistently greater in all GMHT crops. Generally, these effects were specific to each crop type, reflected the phenology and ecology of the arthropod taxa, were indirect and related to herbicide management. These results apply generally to agriculture across Britain, and could be used in mathematical models to predict the possible long-term effects of the widespread adoption of GMHT technology. The results for bees and butterflies relate to foraging preferences and might or might not translate into effects on population densities, depending on whether adoption leads to forage reductions over large areas. These species, and the detritivore Collembola, may be useful indicator species for future studies of GMHT management.     

Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. I. Effects on abundance and diversity

We compared the seedbanks, seed rains, plant densities and biomasses of weeds under two contrasting systems of management in beet, maize and spring oilseed rape. Weed seedbank and plant density were measured at the same locations in two subsequent seasons. About 60 fields were sown with each crop. Each field was split, one half being sown with a conventional variety managed according to the farmer's normal practice, the other half being sown with a genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) variety, with weeds controlled by a broad-spectrum herbicide. In beet and rape, plant densities shortly after sowing were higher in the GMHT treatment. Following weed control in conventional beet, plant densities were approximately one-fifth of those in GMHT beet. In both beet and rape, this effect was reversed after the first application of broad-spectrum herbicide, so that late-season plant densities were lower in the GMHT treatments. Biomass and seed rain in GMHT crops were between one-third and one-sixth of those in conventional treatments. The effects of differing weed-seed returns in these two crops persisted in the seedbank: densities following the GMHT treatment were about 20% lower than those following the conventional treatment. The effect of growing maize was quite different. Weed density was higher throughout the season in the GMHT treatment. Late-season biomass was 82% higher and seed rain was 87% higher than in the conventional treatment. The difference was not subsequently detectable in the seedbank because the total seed return was low after both treatments. In all three crops, weed diversity was little affected by the treatment, except for transient effects immediately following herbicide application.     

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.     

Using a crop model to account for the effects of local factors on the LCA of sugar beet ethanol in Picardy region, France

Purpose

The results of published Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of biofuels are characterized by a large variability, arising from the diversity of both biofuel chains and the methodologies used to estimate inventory data. Here, we suggest that the best option to maximize the accuracy of biofuel LCA is to produce local results taking into account the local soil, climatic and agricultural management factors.

Methods

We focused on a case study involving the production of first-generation ethanol from sugar beet in the Picardy region in Northern France. To account for local factors, we first defined three climatic patterns according to rainfall from a 20-year series of weather data. We subsequently defined two crop rotations with sugar beet as a break crop, corresponding to current practice and an optimized management scenario, respectively. The six combinations of climate types and rotations were run with the process-based model CERES-EGC to estimate crop yields and environmental emissions. We completed the data inventory and compiled the impact assessments using Simapro v.7.1 and Ecoinvent database v2.0.

Results

Overall, sugar beet ethanol had lower impacts than gasoline for the abiotic depletion, global warming, ozone layer depletion and photochemical oxidation categories. In particular, it emitted between 28 % and 42 % less greenhouse gases than gasoline. Conversely, sugar beet ethanol had higher impacts than gasoline for acidification and eutrophication due to losses of reactive nitrogen in the arable field. Thus, LCA results were highly sensitive to changes in local conditions and management factors. As a result, an average impact figures for a given biofuel chain at regional or national scales may only be indicative within a large uncertainty band.

Conclusions

Although the crop model made it possible to take local factors into account in the life-cycle inventory, best management practices that achieved high yields while reducing environmental impacts could not be identified. Further modelling developments are necessary to better account for the effects of management practices, in particular regarding the benefits of fertiliser incorporation into the topsoil in terms of nitrogen losses abatement. Supplementary data and modelling developments also are needed to better estimate the emissions of pesticides and heavy metals in the field.     

Invertebrates and vegetation of field margins adjacent to crops subject to contrasting herbicide regimes in the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops

The effects of management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops on adjacent field margins were assessed for 59 maize, 66 beet and 67 spring oilseed rape sites. Fields were split into halves, one being sown with a GMHT crop and the other with the equivalent conventional non-GMHT crop. Margin vegetation was recorded in three components of the field margins. Most differences were in the tilled area, with fewer smaller effects mirroring them in the verge and boundary. In spring oilseed rape fields, the cover, flowering and seeding of plants were 25%, 44% and 39% lower, respectively, in the GMHT uncropped tilled margins. Similarly, for beet, flowering and seeding were 34% and 39% lower, respectively, in the GMHT margins. For maize, the effect was reversed, with plant cover and flowering 28% and 67% greater, respectively, in the GMHT half. Effects on butterflies mirrored these vegetation effects, with 24% fewer butterflies in margins of GMHT spring oilseed rape. The likely cause is the lower nectar supply in GMHT tilled margins and crop edges. Few large treatment differences were found for bees, gastropods or other invertebrates. Scorching of vegetation by herbicide-spray drift was on average 1.6% on verges beside conventional crops and 3.7% beside GMHT crops, the difference being significant for all three crops.     

Stop worrying; start growing. Risk research on GM crops is a dead parrot: it is time to start reaping the benefits of GM

Opponents of genetically modified crops continue to raise concerns about risk, despite 20 years of research disproving their claims. Science should close the book on risk research and turn to studying the economic and environmental benefits of agricultural biotechnologyEver since the Asilomar Conference on ‘Recombinant DNA'' in February 1975, regulatory policies relating to recombinant DNA technology have focused on the idea that this technology implies threats to human health and the environment [1]. As a consequence, the explicit goal of these policies is to protect society and nature from an assumed hazard, or, if protection is not possible, at least to delay the implementation of the technology until scientific evidence shows it to be harmless. These policies were widely accepted at the time, as public concerns were, and still are, important. As time has gone by, the evidence for negative impacts of genetically modified (GM) crops has become weaker. However, the regulatory policies within the EU are still rigid enough to prevent most GM crops from leaving the confined laboratory setting; should some candidate occasionally overcome the hurdles posed by these policies, the precautionary principle is invoked in order to ensure further delaying in its use in the field. The reason for this over-cautious approach is widespread public resistance to GM crops, caused and amplified by interested groups that are opposed to the technology and invest heavily into lobbying against it.As time has gone by, the evidence for negative impacts of genetically modified (GM) crops has become weakerAgainst this background of political resistance, it is no surprise that the risks, costs and potential disadvantages of not growing GM crops have received little or no attention. These disadvantages become increasingly relevant as the scientific arguments for the prevailing resistance to GM crops become weaker. Twenty-five years of risk research on GM crops have established beyond reasonable doubt that biotechnology is not per se riskier than conventional plant breeding technologies [2]. The whole seemingly endless discussion about purported risks of GM crops is akin to the famous Monty Python sketch in which John Cleese is trying to return a dead parrot to shopkeeper Michael Palin, who, despite the evidence, insists that the bird is well, alive and “pining for the fjords”. Instead, we need to highlight the opportunities missed by not accepting GM crops. These include lost revenues for farmers, breeding companies and consumers, brain drain and lost technology innovations, reduced agricultural productivity and sustainability, foregone health benefits, especially reducing malnutrition, and many more realized or expected virtues of GM crops [3].In a report from 2010, the EC […]concluded that biotechnology is not per se riskier than conventional plant breeding technologiesRisk assessment and risk analysis of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is governed by internationally accepted guidelines, developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (www.fao.org). One leading principle is the concept of substantial equivalence, which stipulates that any new GM variety should be assessed for its safety by comparing it with an equivalent, conventionally bred variety that has an established history of safe use [4]. Despite the fact that the Codex Alimentarius guidelines are globally endorsed, the authorization procedure for GMOs differs substantially between national jurisdictions. Europe stands out as being considerably more restrictive than countries in North and South America and parts of Asia, for example. Within the European Union (EU), a common regulatory legal framework such as Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003, governs GM crops intended for human food and animal feed. Any party seeking approval for an edible GM crop must provide extensive scientific documentation that demonstrates that the food or feed derived thereof has no adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment, does not mislead the consumer, or does not differ from the food it is intended to replace to such an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer.The risk assessment is conducted and compiled by the applicant, and is evaluated by the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The opinion of the panel should form the scientific basis when member states provide other legitimate arguments and cast their votes in the Standing Committee for Food and Animal Health of the European Commission. Thus, the decision to approve a particular GMO should be on the basis of scientific grounds. By the same logic, one might take for granted that only GMOs that have been shown to have adverse effects on animal or human health or the environment will not receive approval. In practice, however, the decision whether or not to approve a particular GMO is not solely a scientific issue. Several member states vote, in principle, against approval, irrespective of the scientific opinion delivered by the EFSA [5]. In recognition of this dead-lock, the European Commission (EC) has suggested that individual member states should have the right to restrict cultivation of a given GM crop even if there are no scientifically established risks, that is, to adopt restrictions on the basis of socio-economical or ethical grounds [6].In addition to the scientific documentation provided by the applicants who seek approval of a GM crop, public research has investigated the risks of GMOs during the past 15 years. The Directorate-General Research under the EC has spent €200 million during the past decade on such research, and several member states have initiated national research programmes specifically targeting the potential impact of the very same crops and traits that are in the European approval system [2]. A collaborative working group under the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) has estimated that the funds allocated to national risk research on GMOs in 13 European countries amount to at least €120 million during the past eight years (http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Gentechnik/Fachinformation_Allgemeines/SCAR_Collaborative_Working_Group_Risk_Research_on_GMOs).In a report from 2010, the EC summarized the results of 130 research projects involving more than 500 independent research groups and concluded that biotechnology is not per se riskier than conventional plant breeding technologies [2]. Further support for this position comes from the UK Farm-Scale Evaluation (FSE), which studied the potential impact of herbicide-tolerant crops on farmland biodiversity [7]. One insight from the study is that overall changes in agricultural management determine the impact of a crop on biodiversity, rather than the technology or breeding behind the crop itself [8].… it is time to look at the other side of the equation and gauge the possible benefits of adopting and growing GM cropsBetween 2008 and 2009, the EFSA GMO panel evaluated a renewal to permit the continued import, processing and cultivation of maize variety MON810 for food and feed. MON810 expresses the Cry1Ab protein from the soil-borne bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which confers resistance to the European corn borer, and is one of two GM crops approved for cultivation in Europe; it was first approved in 1998. As a basis for its 2009 opinion, the EFSA GMO Panel summarized 48 peer-reviewed papers on the potential risks of MON810 on animal and human health and the environment, in addition to the documentation provided by the company [9]. It found no adverse effects and concluded that MON810 is comparable with its conventionally bred parental lines. The only difference reported was that MON810 has an increased variability in lignin content, in some studies it has been found to be higher and in some studies lower. Similarly, a review by Icoz & Stotzky [10] of studies on the effects of insect-resistant Bt crops on soil ecosystems found no notable detrimental effects on microbes and other organisms in below-ground soil ecosystems. Accordingly, the authors concluded that “…available funding would be better spent on studies of the potential risks associated with the release of transgenic plants genetically engineered to express pharmaceutical and industrial products that, in contrast to Cry proteins, are targeted primarily to human beings and other higher eukaryotic organisms.”If, as 15 years of intense research and risk assessment have shown, GM crops do not pose greater risks for human health or the environment than conventionally bred varieties, it is time to look at the other side of the equation and gauge the possible benefits of adopting and growing GM crops. To that end, Fagerström & Wibe [11] analysed the potential economic consequences for Sweden of farmers not growing GM crops—herbicide-tolerant sugar beet and canola, and late blight-resistant potato—and then extended the analysis to all of the EU. They considered two rough categories of impact: effects that could be evaluated by studying market prices that show impacts for producers on work-force and capital, and demand for fertilizers, pesticides and fuel, and factors related to the cost of keeping GM crops separated from conventionally or organically grown crops during cultivation, harvest, transport, storage and processing. The latter cost arises from the European attitude of regarding GM crops and products as contaminants—as if we were dealing with toxic substances.In 2008, Sweden produced almost 2 million tons of sugar beet grown on approximately 37,000 hectares and with a production value of €70 million. The authors calculated that a shift to herbicide-tolerant sugar beet could have led to a 5–10% increase in yield. Expenditure on seeds would increase from €180 to €210 per hectare, but the cost of herbicides would decrease from €180 to €55. Taken together, the cost of input goods would decrease by 27%.Analysis of the sugar beet shows that the economic value to producers and, by extension, to society is strategically dependent on two factors: the cost of keeping GM sugar separate from conventional sugar, and the public acceptance of GM sugar. The crucial limit was found to be a separation cost of 25% of the price; at this limit, the economic value to society vanishes even if all consumers buy GM products—if public acceptance is 100%. In a realistic scenario the separation cost is ∼10% of the price and the public acceptance is ∼25% of the consumers. Thus, the economic benefit would be €1.3 million, or ∼2% of the total value of sugar beet production. If GM crops enjoyed full public acceptance, and if there were accordingly no costs of separation, the economic gain to society would amount to €10 million; about 14% of the total value of sugar beet production. Approximately 3,000 hectares of arable land—8% of the acreage of sugar beet—would be available for other uses.Similar values apply for potato and canola, so introducing these three GM crops in Sweden would yield an economic value of €30 million annually. In addition, producers would regain 10,000 hectares (ha) of arable land; using official statistics on leasing costs for arable land in Sweden, this has an annual value of approximately €2 million. This adds up to a combined annual value to society of €32 million. The accumulated value of this annual revenue over many years—the so-called capitalized value—is €1–€1.6 billion at an interest rate of 2–3%. The annual gain amounts to approximately 14, 11 and 5% of the production value for sugar beet, canola and potato, respectively. EU-wide, a shift to these three GM crops would yield a gain of ∼€2 billion annually, and would save ∼645,000 ha, which corresponds to a capitalized value in the range of €80–€120 billion.These calculations presuppose full public acceptance of GM crops; that is, a world in which consumers perceive GM crops as equal to or better than non-GM varieties. In addition, the results rest on the assumption that the benefits to the environment such as decreased use of pesticides can be measured by the cost of the pesticides. Presumably, this is an underestimate of the environmental benefits, and the societal value is therefore probably greater than the figures presented above.Other studies address the problem of missed economic benefits, often using economic models similar to those used by Fagerström & Wibe [11]. Generally, they confirm the results discussed above: the magnitudes of the unrealized benefits are similar. Matin Qaim, an agricultural economist at Göttingen University, Germany, for example, presented figures for Bt cotton adoption that would entail global welfare gains in the range of €0.5–€1.0 billion per year [12]. The biggest impact occurs in China, but India, where the relevant technology was more recently commercialized, has been catching up rapidly. It is estimated that the widespread adoption of Bt cotton in India and other countries of South Asia will result in further regional welfare gains on the order of €1 billion per year.The benefits of adopting GM oilseeds and maize are amplified by the larger international markets on which they are traded. While the annual global welfare gains at the present moderate level of adoption are estimated at €3.5 billion [13], this figure could reach approximately €7.5 billion with widespread international adoption of herbicide-tolerance and insect-resistant crops [12]. However, it is also noted that a ban on production and imports by the EU could reduce these global gains by two-thirds owing to unrealized benefits for domestic consumers and the far-reaching influence of EU policies on international trade flows and production decisions in other regions.… not adopting modern breeding tools—including biotechnology—will probably hamper the European agricultural systems facing a warmer and more variable climateLarge global welfare gains are projected for GM rice as well. Assuming that there is moderate adoption of GM rice in rice-producing regions, the combined global welfare gains are estimated to be in the region of €5 billion per year for Bt-carrying, herbicide-resistant and drought-tolerant rice varieties, with India and China gaining the most. Projected welfare gains in China alone could reach more than €3 billion when first-generation GM rice technologies are widely adopted. Both studies [11,12] highlight that available analyses probably provide lower estimates of the global welfare effects of GM crops, because other environmental and health benefits have not been properly quantified.Agriculture is blamed frequently for biodiversity loss. Several recent studies, however, demonstrate that the design of the agricultural landscape, with refuges for non-crop species, intercropping and crop rotation, can counterbalance the effects of an intensified agriculture system [14]. Hence, one of the most important consequences of better yields from herbicide and pest-resistant GM crops in Europe would be that the surplus land could be used for refuges to promote biodiversity in the farming landscape and save natural forests from deforestation or wetlands from being drained to make way for farmland. However, regulations regarding cultivation distances, as well as other measures to keep GM crops separate from conventionally bred varieties, lock GM crops into large-scale agricultural practices and, in effect, prevent intercropping. Thus, the principle of non-coexistence limits the scope for farmers to take full advantage of the benefits of present and future GM crops to further reduce the need for pesticides and increase the productivity of farmland. This line of reasoning is supported by a recent study showing that the willingness of farmers to adopt GM crops is substantially hampered by the costs and uncertainties associated with coexistence regulations, despite lower costs for chemicals [15].Historically, cereal crop varieties have been replaced by new varieties on average every 5–10 years [16]. The reasons for this turnover vary, but one underlying drive for crop replacement is the rapid loss of resistance traits. In order to maintain yield levels, farmers must either increase their use of chemicals to kill pests, or change to a new crop variety; hence the continuous breeding for resistance traits. Imminent climate changes will put further constraints on agricultural production, including an increasing need for faster and more efficient plant breeding to adapt crops to more variable local conditions [17]. If breeders fail in this regard, agro-chemical use will increase and Europe will become more dependent on imports. In Europe, the spatial variation in rainfall is expected to increase: Northern Europe can expect a more humid climate, which will constrain crop production owing to the increased severity of biotic stresses such as insect pests, fungal pathogens and the invasion of alien, noxious species, whereas crop production in southern Europe will have to be adapted to drier conditions [18,19]. Thus, not adopting modern breeding tools—including biotechnology—will probably hamper the European agricultural systems facing a warmer and more variable climate [20].Legislation that determines what constitutes a GMO was ratified in 2001. In a legal sense, a GMO is defined as an organism in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination, and refers to both plants and animals, except humans. In practice, a GMO is defined by an addendum to the Directive 2001/18EC, which lists the techniques that give rise to a GMO. Since the Directive 2001/18EC was ratified, ten years have passed, and technology has progressed further. Many of the techniques listed in the addendum have been improved or are obsolete. A recent report to the EC by the Joint Research Centre [21] describes new methods, their possible applications for plant breeding and potential implications for agriculture. One common aspect of the new techniques is that many involve the use of recombinant DNA or RNA molecules in one phase of the breeding process; however, these recombinant molecules are not present in the final product and are commonly not transmitted to the next generation.… the burden of EU legislation for GM technologies is completely out of proportion compared with other science-based endeavoursInterestingly, European scientists at public and private institutions are at the forefront of technological development concerning new breeding. In this respect the situation is similar to the history of plant transformation technologies first developed at European universities [22], but now mainly used outside Europe [23]. By way of illustration, BASF, the company that developed the Amflora potato, announced recently that it is halting research on GM crops in Europe. Ultimately, the development and success of scientific know-how and new technology in Europe, as well as the adoption of new techniques and crops, will depend on the decisions made by European legislators who are discussing GM technologies and their ratification.As a comparison, other genetically engineered products, such as biopharmaceuticals, are approved for humans and food-producing animals after ordinary science-based safety assessments [23], without the ideological stigmatization and biased decision-making processes seen for GM crops.Our review of the state-of-affairs of GM crops in Europe raises several fundamental issues. First, the burden of EU legislation for GM technologies is completely out of proportion compared with other science-based endeavours. This is manifested by the substantially longer time required for a GM product to reach approval within the European legal framework (45 months), compared with GMO-exporting countries such as the USA, Canada or Brazil (27 months) [24]. In addition, these European approval times are only valid for importing commodities; approvals for cultivation in Europe take substantially longer. It took 14 years for the Amflora potato, for example, which is only the second GM crop to be approved in Europe. Not only are rules more restrictive in Europe, but only the largest companies in the seed and plant breeding business have the financial capacity to go through the lengthy and costly procedure required for approving a GM crop variety. This hampers small and medium business and prevents business spin-offs from plant research.Second, research priorities in regard to the environmental impacts of agriculture are not directed in a productive way; risk research in Europe is not helping to develop sustainable agriculture for the future. The paradigm that stipulates that biotechnology is inherently risky, and singles out one plant breeding technology as the basis for risk research, is putting a massive regulatory burden on a technology that could enhance sustainability. As a consequence, any future risk research on GMOs in Europe should address the costs of this burden and the risks of not using biotechnology. We conclude that the research programmes set up in the EU to address the potential risks of GM crops are no longer scientifically motivated inquiries. The scientific community has already settled the relevant questions regarding potential risks associated with GM crops approved under legislation; what is going on is a political game. In this game, the so-called precautionary principle is used, in absurdum, to delay any launch of a GM crop far beyond the limit of reasonable scientific doubts.Third, it is time to acknowledge the distinct imbalance with respect to the costs and benefits of GM crops: lobbyists who benefit from demonizing GM crops are not the ones who have to carry the costs. Hence, it is not the hyped risks of GM crops that are a problem in the EU, it is the submissive attitude of politicians and policy-makers towards organizations who insist that GM crops are risky. It is then ordinary consumers who pay the costs and do not receive the benefits. This submissiveness manifests in the prevailing policy that GM products should be kept separate from non-GM products, as well as the incessant calls for regulations about labelling and traceability. As shown above, the potential benefit to the European economy from adopting GM crops is substantial. But these potential benefits vanish altogether when the costs of maintaining separation and consumer resistance are brought into play as a result of misinformation campaigns.… research priorities in regard to the environmental impacts of agriculture are not directed in a productive way…Risk research on GM crops in Europe has to come to an end, as do futile battles about disasters that will not happen. A dead parrot is a dead parrot, both in Monty Python sketches and in science. The way to sustainable and productive agriculture is not by maintaining expensive, parallel production systems, using different sets of crop varieties, and relying on expensive regulations for their coexistence. Instead, agricultural systems should use the best available technology at all stages, including plant breeding. It is clear that the approval and decision process within the EU for GM crops is not science-based. The risk assessment and approval process, where the outcome is dominated by the opinions of a few self-interested stakeholder organizations with special interests is unique. It is alarming that decision-making bodies kow-tow to this non-science-based paradigm.? Open in a separate windowTorbjörn FagerströmOpen in a separate windowChristina DixeliusOpen in a separate windowUlf MagnussonOpen in a separate windowJens F Sundström     

Life cycle assessment and socioeconomic evaluation of the illicit crop substitution policy in Colombia

The peace treaty of Colombia contemplates a crop substitution policy seeking to replace coca crops with legal alternatives. Although crop substitution diverts funding of illegal activities and provides an income to farmers, it is important to understand how the change to a variety of legal crops (coffee, sugarcane, and cacao) affects the income of farmers, and whether there is an environmental advantage of a crop over another. This study applies life cycle assessment (LCA) coupled with socioeconomic indicators to two regions, Putumayo and Catatumbo, over different policy scenarios. LCA results show that a policy success does not ensure a lower environmental impact across the board. Legal crops consume less fuel than coca crops, which reduce fuel‐related impacts, but the use of fertilizer in coffee and pesticide use in sugarcane increase toxicity‐related impacts. The results, however, are affected by a lack of characterization factors of agrochemicals, but once these are replaced by proxies, coca crops appear to have greater toxicity impacts. In terms of individual crops, cacao crops have a lower environmental impact than coffee and sugarcane, but it also takes the longest to harvest, which may pose a financial risk to farmers. The socioeconomic analysis reveals that for Catatumbo farmers, a policy success reduces the income, whereas for Putumayo farmers, a policy success increases income and job generation. In general, it was observed that the dynamics of the illegal supply chain vary for each region, influencing the environmental and socioeconomic outcome of the substitution policy.     

Outcrossing potential between 11 important genetically modified crops and the Chilean vascular flora

The potential impact of genetically modified (GM) crops on biodiversity is one of the main concerns in an environmental risk assessment (ERA). The likelihood of outcrossing and pollen‐mediated gene flow from GM crops and non‐GM crops are explained by the same principles and depend primarily on the biology of the species. We conducted a national‐scale study of the likelihood of outcrossing between 11 GM crops and vascular plants in Chile by use of a systematized database that included cultivated, introduced and native plant species in Chile. The database included geographical distributions and key biological and agronomical characteristics for 3505 introduced, 4993 native and 257 cultivated (of which 11 were native and 246 were introduced) plant species. Out of the considered GM crops (cotton, soya bean, maize, grape, wheat, rice, sugar beet, alfalfa, canola, tomato and potato), only potato and tomato presented native relatives (66 species total). Introduced relative species showed that three GM groups were formed having: a) up to one introduced relative (cotton and soya bean), b) up to two (rice, grape, maize and wheat) and c) from two to seven (sugar beet, alfalfa, canola, tomato and potato). In particular, GM crops presenting introduced noncultivated relative species were canola (1 relative species), alfalfa (up to 4), rice (1), tomato (up to 2) and potato (up to 2). The outcrossing potential between species [OP; scaled from ‘very low’ (1) to ‘very high’ (5)] was developed, showing medium OPs (3) for GM–native relative interactions when they occurred, low (2) for GMs and introduced noncultivated and high (4) for the grape‐Vitis vinifera GM–introduced cultivated interaction. This analytical tool might be useful for future ERA for unconfined GM crop release in Chile.     

Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet

Weed control is important and one of the more expensive inputs to sugar beet production. The introduction of genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMHT) sugar beet would result in a major saving in weed control costs in the crop for growers, including control of problem weeds such as perennial weeds and weed beet. However, there would be other economic consequences of growing GMHT beet, some of which would manifest themselves in other parts of the rotation, such as the previous crop, the cereal stubbles that proceed most beet crops, soil tillage and spray application. The average national saving for UK sugar beet growers if they could use the technology would be in excess of £150 ha^?1 yr^?1 or £23 million yr^?1, which includes reductions in agrochemical use of c. £80 ha,^?1 yr^?1 or £12 million yr^?1. However, for some growers, the gains would be much larger and for a few, less than these figures. The possible cost savings are sufficiently large that they could ensure that sugar beet production, with its regionally important environmental benefits as a spring crop, remains economically viable in the UK post reform of the EU sugar regime.     

转基因抗除草剂油菜对近缘作物的基因漂移

以转基因抗除草剂油菜 Q3和 HCN- 19为花粉供体材料 ,油菜近缘作物为花粉受体材料 ,在自然授粉条件下研究甘蓝型油菜与芸薹属近缘作物间的基因漂移频率。结果表明 ,油菜对芸薹属 6个种甘蓝、黑芥、埃芥、芥菜型油菜、白菜型油菜和甘蓝型油菜的基因漂移率分别为 0、0 .0 2 4 %～ 0 .2 4 3%、 0 .0 2 8%～ 0 .0 92 %、 0 .10 9%～ 0 .95 1%、 0 .4 79%～ 0 .879%、 1.2 5 2 %～2 .191%。且基因漂移频率受多种因素影响 ,其中与杂交亲和性、花期同步率、种植面积等高度相关。通过花粉将抗除草剂基因漂移给近缘作物 ,油菜是需要特别关注的作物     

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.     

Solving the multifunctionality dilemma in biorefineries with a novel hybrid mass–energy allocation method

Processing biomass into multifunctional products can contribute to food, feed, and energy security while also mitigating climate change. However, biorefinery products nevertheless impact the environment, and this influence needs to be properly assessed to minimize the burden. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is often used to calculate environmental footprints of products, but distributing the burdens among the different biorefinery products is a challenge. A particular complexity arises when the outputs are a combination of energy carrying no mass, and mass carrying no energy, where neither an allocation based on mass nor on energy would be appropriate. A novel hybrid mass–energy (HMEN) allocation scheme for dealing with multifunctionality problems in biorefineries was developed and applied to five biorefinery concepts. The results were compared to results of other allocation methods in LCA. The reductions in energy use and GHG emissions from using the biorefinery's biofuels were also quantified. HMEN fairly distributed impacts among biorefinery products and did not change the order of the products in terms of the level of the pollution caused. The allocation factors for HMEN fell between mass and economic allocation factors and were comparable to energy allocation factors. Where the mass or the energy allocation failed to attribute burdens, HMEN addressed this shortcoming by assigning impacts to nonmass or to nonenergy products. Under the partitioning methods and regardless of the feedstock used, bioethanol reduced GHG by 72–98% relative to gasoline. The GHG savings were 196% under the substitution method, but no GHG savings occurred for sugar beet bioethanol under the surplus method. Bioethanol from cellulosic crops had lower energy use and GHG emissions than from sugar beet, regardless of the allocation method used. HMEN solves multifunctional problems in biorefineries and can be applied to other complex refinery systems. LCA practitioners are encouraged to further test this method in other case studies.     

Environmental fate and behaviour of antibiotic resistance genes and small interference RNAs released from genetically modified crops

Rising global populations have amplified food scarcity across the world and ushered in the development of genetically modified (GM) crops to overcome these challenges. Cultivation of major crops such as corn and soy has favoured GM crops over conventional varieties to meet crop production and resilience needs. Modern GM crops containing small interference RNA molecules and antibiotic resistance genes have become increasingly common in the United States. However, the use of these crops remains controversial due to the uncertainty regarding the unintended release of its genetic material into the environment and possible downstream effects on human and environmental health. DNA or RNA transgenes may be exuded from crop tissues during cultivation or released during plant decomposition and adsorbed by soil. This can contribute to the persistence and bioavailability in soil or water environment and possible uptake by soil microbial communities and further passing of this information to neighbouring bacteria, disrupting microbial ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling and soil fertility. In this review, transgene mechanisms of action, uses in crops, and knowledge regarding their environmental fate and impact to microbes are evaluated. This aims to encapsulate the current knowledge and promote further research regarding unintended effects transgenes may cause.     

The implication of irrigation in climate change impact assessment: a European‐wide study

This study evaluates the impacts of projected climate change on irrigation requirements and yields of six crops (winter wheat, winter barley, rapeseed, grain maize, potato, and sugar beet) in Europe. Furthermore, the uncertainty deriving from consideration of irrigation, CO₂ effects on crop growth and transpiration, and different climate change scenarios in climate change impact assessments is quantified. Net irrigation requirement (NIR) and yields of the six crops were simulated for a baseline (1982–2006) and three SRES scenarios (B1, B2 and A1B, 2040–2064) under rainfed and irrigated conditions, using a process‐based crop model, SIMPLACE . We found that projected climate change decreased NIR of the three winter crops in northern Europe (up to 81 mm), but increased NIR of all the six crops in the Mediterranean regions (up to 182 mm yr^?1). Climate change increased yields of the three winter crops and sugar beet in middle and northern regions (up to 36%), but decreased their yields in Mediterranean countries (up to 81%). Consideration of CO₂ effects can alter the direction of change in NIR for irrigated crops in the south and of yields for C3 crops in central and northern Europe. Constraining the model to rainfed conditions for spring crops led to a negative bias in simulating climate change impacts on yields (up to 44%), which was proportional to the irrigation ratio of the simulation unit. Impacts on NIR and yields were generally consistent across the three SRES scenarios for the majority of regions in Europe. We conclude that due to the magnitude of irrigation and CO₂ effects, they should both be considered in the simulation of climate change impacts on crop production and water availability, particularly for crops and regions with a high proportion of irrigated crop area.     

Transgenic,transplastomic and other genetically modified plants: a Canadian perspective

Since the mid 1990s, genetically modified (GM) crops have been grown commercially in Canada on a scale that has increased steadily over the years. An intense debate ensued, as elsewhere, and many fears were expressed regarding not only the technology itself but some of the main GM crops being grown. It would seem appropriate at this time to examine how these novel crops compare to crops bred by more traditional means and what impacts these GM crops have had based on experience and not merely on conjecture. To begin, we will put things in a historical perspective and recall how domestication and conventional plant breeding have shaped the crops of today. Then, we will describe briefly the distinctive features of GM plants (obtained so far mainly by nuclear transgenesis) and how these novel crops are regulated in Canada. We will then give two examples of widely grown GM crops in Canada (insect-resistant corn and herbicide-tolerant canola) and examine the main questions that were raised as well as the actual impacts these crops have had on the farm. These examples will help us outline some of the limitations of the current generation of GM plants and, finally, we will try to get a glimpse of the future by examining some recent technical developments in the field of recombinant DNA technologies applied to plant breeding.     

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.