• Autor: Alonso Ramirez C
• Fecha de Publicación: Lunes, 23 de Junio del 2008

Estas organizaciones anunciaron que estan en análisis contínuo del genoma, que es de vital importancia mundial, ya que el proyecto del genoma de la palma de aceite, les representa un gran convenio entre las dos instituciones. Asi mismo, con este tipo de conocimiento del mapa completo del genoma de la palma de aceite, por medio de la Ingeniería Genética, la Ingeniería de los Alimentos, y la Ingeniería Agrícola, modificaciones genéticas y mantenimiento de las mismas para el mejoramiento de la producción de la planta para sus productos procesados de la cual es materia prima, y la fabricación de numerosos nutraceuticos o su incorporación en aquellos productos procesados.

Del este genoma, varios científicos de diversas organizaciones científicas aseguran, que son menos de 2 Billones de pares de bases la que componen el genoma completo, y que en su tamaño, y proporcionalidad, supera varias veces a otros genomas fundamentales para la industria biotecnológica, como el arroz y el maíz ya secuenciados.

Asi mismo, estas compañías estan en el proceso de análisis lo mas completo posible, de las aplicacione sy sus viabilidad en el mundo actual, como por ejemplo, analizando sus propiedades bioquímicas, fisiológicas, proteómicas, entre otras, para su correspondiente aplicación, como combustibles renovables, mejoramiento nutricional por medio de la producción alimenticia, aumento en la cantidad de producto procesado y adminstrado para calmar la crisis actual de alimentos, esntre otras más, asi también, como el mejoramiento de la planta en su etapa de crecimiento, como resistencia a sustancias y/o organismos patógenos a la misma.

Fuente Imagen: http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/poil_main.jpg

Introduction

Genetically modified rice that contains beta-carotene, widely known as Golden Rice (GR), has not yet been introduced in any country. It was developed to address Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) in low-income rice consumers, but currently needs much more development and testing before it can be introduced into farmers’ fields. GR is the most famous biofortification effort undertaken with modern biotechnology, due to the initial publicity (e.g., the cover of Time magazine on July 31, 2000). As such, it has been a lightening rod for the debate about the use of GMOs in meeting nutritional needs. Thus, for this special issue on GM foods and biofortification, a review of the lessons learned from the GR case is crucial to understanding the political landscape for other biofortification efforts. GR shows both the dramatic nutritional benefits that can be achieved with use of modern biotechnology and the considerable hurdles to eventual adoption and impact.

Below, this article presents the story of GR, including a review of the controversies regarding its development and the literature estimating ex-ante benefits, risks, and costs. The article closes with an assessment of the current prospects for GR and lessons for other biofortification efforts.

Impetus, Development, and Initial Reactions

The polished rice grain does not contain beta-carotene, a Vitamin A precursor that the body converts into Vitamin A. In low-income populations where rice is the primary staple, several micronutrient deficiencies are chronic problems, including lack of Vitamin A. Such deficiencies are particularly pronounced in small children, who need greater nutrient density in food to meet their higher nutrient needs. While the link between VAD and blindness captures public attention, VAD also lowers immune response and increases the death rate from common childhood diseases in developing countries, and as such VAD is often considered primarily in terms of childhood-mortality effects.

VAD is widely recognized as a globally significant problem. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2004, p. 4) estimates that “Vitamin A deficiency is compromising the immune systems of approximately 40% of the developing world’s under-fives and leading to the early deaths of an estimated one million young children each year.” VAD is often a problem where rice gruel is used as a weaning food. It is most important in the poorest nations of the world, including most of South and Southeast Asia where rice is the main staple, and that situation has not changed during the past decade.

The idea of using rice as a vehicle to address micronutrient deficiencies dates at least to the early 1980s. This idea emerged within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system and led to conventional breeding efforts to increase iron and zinc in rice in the 1990s. Creating rice with beta-carotene content was not possible until the advent of modern biotechnology techniques. The Rockefeller Foundation (RF) funded the initial GR research through its Rice Biotechnology Network, which was specifically established to address the need for basic biotechnology research on this important food crop that was likely to be ignored by the private sector in industrialized countries. With support from the RF in the 1990s, Ingko Potrykus at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and Peter Beyer at the University of Freiburg, Germany, collaborated to introduce daffodil genes into rice. The science was complex and cutting edge at that time, as it was an early example of the use of pathway engineering. Their success was hailed as a significant breakthrough in the application of modern biotechnology, and the work appeared in Science (Ye et al., 2000).

In conjunction with scientific publication, Potrykus appeared on the cover of Time (July 31, 2000). Interestingly, the cover itself posed the debate that has dogged this idea from the beginning: “This rice could save a million kids a year, but protesters believe such genetically modified foods are bad for us and our planet.” The article appeared at the height of the relatively new debate about the acceptance of GM foods, largely triggered by trade conflicts between exporting countries that had adopted the technology (the United States, Canada, and Argentina) and the importing countries (largely the European Union [EU] and other European nations).

Part of the publicity focused on the donation of intellectual property (IP) rights for the GR technology so that it could be further developed and adapted for introduction in the developing world. Apart from the patent held by Potrykus, several enabling technologies were also needed for further development. Potrykus formed a partnership with Zeneca (which later became Syngenta Seeds AS after its merger with Novartis), due to their history of work in carotenoids. Syngenta negotiated to put together a package of rights to be donated for humanitarian use, including patents held by Bayer AG, Monsanto Co., Orynova BV, and Zeneca Mogen BV. The condition for use of these patents include a) that seeds are developed for distribution to farmers in developing countries earning less than $10,000 per year from farming and 2) that release only takes place in countries with adequate biosafety regulations. The donation of this package of IP rights for humanitarian purposes was advertised as a model for the future transfer of this technology to developing countries.

Negative reactions to GR were immediate and in many cases quite emotional. The groups reacting included environmental advocacy groups already engaged in arguing against GM crops in general, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engaged in nutrition and food-security issues in developing countries. In Southeast Asia, such groups included Biodiversity and Community Rights Action (BIOTHAI) in Thailand, the Cambodian Center for Study and Development in Agriculture (CEDAC), the Development Research Communication and Services Centre (DRCSC) in India, GRAIN-MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, Inc.) in the Philippines, and PAN-Indonesia and Policy Research for Development Alternatives (UBINIG) in Bangladesh (BIOTHAI et al., 2001). First-world opposition includes organizations opposed to GM technology, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Food First, as well as various groups in Europe (e.g., Institute for Science in Society in the United Kingdom). Nutrition intervention groups do not seem to have been as vocal in the debate.

Many of these reactions reworked long-standing concerns about Green Revolution technologies and the commercialization of smallholder agriculture and thus were not specific to GR. All of the opposing groups agree that VAD is an important problem but objected to GR either as an inappropriate or an ineffective solution. To summarize, the negative reactions were based on these points:

1. Malnutrition is a result of poverty and interventions already exist to address micronutrient deficiencies. Instead of developing GR, resources should be focused on poverty alleviation, sustainable farming, and proven strategies for nutrition intervention, such as supplementation and diet diversification through backyard or community gardens.
2. GM foods are inherently unsafe to human health and the environment. GR poses risks of these kinds and thus will not achieve its humanitarian goals.
3. Rice is directly consumed by the poor, and thus the poor would be “guinea pigs” for any human health impacts. Either GR will not provide enough Vitamin A to do any good or will provide too much, resulting in Vitamin A toxicity.
4. The IP arrangements are so convoluted that they do not preclude commercial abuse and do not represent a useful replicable model. The idea of “donation” is an anathema to those who object to commercial control of any agricultural IP.
5. GR is part of the continued use of “Green Revolution” technologies that are unsustainable and harmful to the poor.

It is not this case study’s purpose to debate these points but rather to delineate issues that are under debate.

The virulence of the debate is surprising to someone who is agnostic on the subject. On the one hand, scientists, multi-national seed companies, and the CGIAR felt that they deserved credit for addressing a humanitarian issue head-on and for donating technology for beneficial use. Admittedly, multi-nationals were in need of positive publicity following the negative reactions to first-generation GM crops in Europe, and this was a strong motivation for their action on IP issues. But it does seem that scientists involved were surprised to have their motives questioned, as they genuinely believed in the positive humanitarian potential of this technology. On the other hand, those opposed to GM technology for ethical, environmental, or health concerns seem to have felt that this represented a commercial conspiracy to win over the public. They wanted to debunk this technology because it diverts attention from potential negative impacts to potential positive ones, thus changing the terms of the debate. They labeled it a “Trojan horse” for other biotechnology products in less-developed countries. For the NGOs involved in poverty alleviation, it represents competition for resources and influence. Thus, the debate has been quite hostile in that each side accuses the other of acting in bad faith.

Subsequent Evolution and Current Status

The public attention to this potential new technology reinforced for its advocates the need to address several issues in its development. It is perhaps unfortunate that the first scientific breakthrough generated so much attention when it remained fairly far removed from implementation. The initial strains of GR utilizing daffodil genes did not contain very much beta-carotene and might have had little impact on VAD in most Asian diets. This point was noted almost immediately by astute advocates for the opposition (e.g., Shiva, 2000). Later GR1 lines contain as much as 5 times more beta-carotene, although Dawe, Robertson, and Unnevehr (2002) found that even this level may not have much impact in some populations that are severely affected by VAD and for whom rice is not the only staple.

Subsequent research has utilized cereal genes rather than daffodil genes to generate much higher levels of beta-carotene in so-called GR2 lines (Paine et al., 2005). In these lines, the enzymatic activity in the PSY genes found within maize or rice is utilized to produce much higher levels of beta-carotene in the rice grain. The new levels of beta-carotene in GR2 lines are 20 times higher than the original line, and these materials could provide all of the Vitamin A requirements for children eating rice-based diets (Stein, Sachdev, & Qaim, 2006). This improvement in beta-carotene content brought forth a few restatements of the same general objections from those originally opposed to the technology (e.g., see Greenpeace, 2005).

The initial framework to donate GR technology for humanitarian purposes remains under the control of Potrykus and Beyer, who are advised by a Golden Rice Humanitarian Board (Golden Rice Humanitarian Project website). This Board does not make funding decisions. Much of the current funding for development comes from USAID grants to the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), as well as country-mission grants to National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS). Other funding sources include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Swiss Development and Collaboration Agency, the Syngenta Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.¹ Research collaborators include IRRI, as well as NARS institutions in Bangladesh, Vietnam, the Philippines, India, China, and Indonesia.

Field trials of the GR1 lines were conducted for the first time in 2004 at Louisiana State University (as US regulations allowed this step to move forward more quickly than in any Asian country). The first trials demonstrate that the crop is agronomically sound and may have higher beta-carotene when grown under field conditions. Limited field trials for the GR2 lines have also been carried out, but these GR1 and GR2 lines need to be crossed into appropriate indica varieties for use in Asia.

In Asia, research samples of the initial GR arrived at IRRI in 2001. Attempts were made to create new transgenic variants of IR64, BR29, and other widely grown varieties in Asia with high levels of beta-carotene, using the same genes for beta-carotene synthesis. Breeding work (back-crossing) into leading Asian varieties was also undertaken with the initial GR lines. With the availability of the new GR1 and GR2 lines with higher beta-carotene content, the activities with the initial lines were ended in 2003, and back-crossing work with the new lines began in 2004. As of yet, no field trials have been conducted in Asia, although such trials of backcrossed GR1 and GR2 lines may be conducted in the Philippines in 2007 and are possible in India in 2008 (G. Barry, personal communication, June 20, 2007). These countries have relatively well established biosafety guidelines, and have already approved other GM crops for commercial purposes.

Beyond issues of agronomic viability, there are other development efforts required to address issues of acceptance, safety, and impact. Some taste tests have been carried out (Dubock, 2005), although not yet in Asia. Bioavailability testing is currently ongoing at Tufts University, using GR2 lines (Stein, Sachdev, & Qaim, 2007), and the next phase will be a study in Asia (G. Toenniessen, personal communication, August 1, 2006). Detailed work for biosafety risk assessment will continue as the crop-development work advances. This risk assessment work will be mostly carried out in Asia by NARS and will take several years to complete.

Preliminary stability and retention studies are also underway in Germany, the United States, and the Philippines in order to take account of varying storage and cooking conditions in different socioeconomic and cultural settings. For example, exposure to air, light, and moisture during storage will vary across locations. As another example, rice is parboiled in Bangladesh before eating. Conditions and food preparation processes such as these could have large effects on the quantity of beta-carotene in the cooked grain, so the results of these studies will be critical for making a better assessment of the potential contribution of GR to alleviating VAD. More work of this kind will need to be done as more material adapted to local conditions is developed.

An Ex-Ante Analysis of Benefits, Costs, and Risks

As discussed above, the importance of VAD is widely recognized. Its persistence is testimony to the limitations of current interventions (discussed more fully in other papers in this special issue). GR has the potential to reach important subpopulations that have not been targeted by current interventions, most notably small children in parts of rural Asia where rice is the predominant staple and weaning food. Several different studies have now tried to assess the potential benefits of GR using different economic methods and building their analyses on some strong assumptions about nutritional benefits. Because GR is still so far from actual production and consumption, little is known about bioavailability, losses in storage or cooking, or many other factors that would influence the actual delivery of Vitamin A. These studies are beginning and will help define the deployment options for the product.

Costs of development will include basic research, adaptation to local conditions, biosafety testing, and costs of consumer and producer education, as well as any specific marketing regulations and future maintenance breeding. In 2002, Dawe et al. made very crude estimates of GR costs for Asia, which now appear to have underestimated the costs of development and promotion. Stein’s (2006) estimates of the costs for bringing GR to market in India are $21-28 million total for the next 30 years (discounted to the present), or $0.7-0.9 million annually. This includes costs of development within India of $4.1-8.7 million, $2.2-2.5 million for regulatory review, and $15.6-30.7 million for promotion and marketing. These estimates show that significant investments must still be made to bring GR to farmers’ fields in Asia, above and beyond international research and development (R&D) to support understanding of bioavailability and biosafety.

Every ex-ante study has shown benefits from GR, and these are usually substantial and cost-effective. Dawe et al. (2002) found that the initial GR strain would deliver very modest amounts of Vitamin A in the diets of VAD children in one area of the Philippines. They also estimated that the initial GR was very cost-effective compared with other interventions, such as wheat fortification or supplementation. Zimmermann and Qaim (2004) estimated the benefits in terms of saved disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and found potential reductions in annual health-related costs of $16-88 million in the Philippines. Anderson, Jackson, and Nielsen (2004) used their results to estimate benefits of better health for unskilled workers in a general equilibrium framework and found that health benefits potentially dwarf any agricultural productivity benefits from GM rice, maize, and oilseed crops in Asia.

The most recent study is by Stein (2006) for India, and it finds that the newer GR would reduce the burden of VAD in India by 5-54%, depending upon assumptions about adoption and who consumes it. The cost-per-DALY-saved would be $3.40-35.47 for GR, which compares favorably with alternative interventions. However, these costs-per-DALY-saved for GR are significantly higher than equivalent costs for biofortification of rice or wheat with either iron or zinc. The latter biofortifications are easier to achieve and to promote, as they involve less complex breeding applications and fewer consumer-acceptance issues. The Stein (2006) study confirms that major benefits are possible from GR, but also that it may be a more challenging biofortification application than other potential biofortification interventions.

What are the risks for supporters of GR? One risk that seems minimal at this stage is that NGOs will be able to derail field testing on a large scale. Several countries in Asia (including the Philippines and India) have already approved GM crops for commercial purposes, and there are procedures for such approval in many countries. If the data support the effectiveness and safety of the new crops, it seems politically likely that field testing will proceed. However, exporting countries like Thailand and Vietnam are cautious about GM content that might reduce export prospects. GR at least provides a visible marker (golden color) that would facilitate market segmentation.

However, NGOs may have more influence on adoption by farmers and consumers than on field testing. Many large NGOs are likely to support GR if it is safe and effective, e.g., the influential NGOs in Bangladesh such as Grameen, Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), and Proshika. These NGOs are unlikely to take a major lead in promoting GR, but they will probably not oppose it and may lend some support to its dissemination if there is strong evidence it will help the poor. But many other NGOs advocate organic farming, and it seems unlikely that any amount of evidence will convince them to support GR: their objections are due to ethical or ideological considerations, not scientific skepticism. Their influence is not to be ignored, and if GR is to be adopted, educational campaigns targeted to farmers and the general public will be of crucial importance.

There are several other risks that could be important. First, after substantial investment, GR may not be widely adopted and will have little semblance of the impact envisioned. Farmers who wish to sell it in markets (most rice in Asia is traded in markets, not consumed at home) may not want to take the risks of adopting a new variety (e.g., lower yield, susceptibility to pests and diseases) unless they are compensated with higher prices or yields. However, such higher prices would work against its incorporation into the diets of the poor, possibly causing it to wind up as a niche product for rich consumers. One possibility to counter these incentives would be to bundle the increased beta-carotene content with other new desirable traits that farmers find helpful. Alternatively, GR could be grown by poor farmers for their own consumption, although again they may be discouraged by the risks noted above. Furthermore, this strategy would limit the potential impact of GR because the poorest of the poor typically buy much of their rice on markets. Yet another possibility would be for governments to subsidize the production and/or consumption of GR through public distribution systems to encourage adoption by farmers and consumption by poor consumers. However, it should be noted that targeted government subsidies in agriculture and food are difficult to deliver without substantial leakage of financial resources.

Second, GR may cause unforeseen health risks, particularly if it is the first GMO to be widely consumed by children. This speaks to the importance of extensive testing to ensure that GR has limited side effects and, after storage and cooking, has enough bioavailable beta-carotene to substantially reduce VAD. The lengthy approval process still underway for commercialization of Bt rice in China shows the concerns that governments have over GM food crops (as opposed to Bt maize intended for animal feed or Bt cotton). These issues are discussed more fully in the China and Philippines case studies elsewhere in this special issue. If Bt rice is approved in China, this will most likely smooth the path for approval of GR—certainly in China and possibly in other countries as well.

Third, GR may be adopted and have a positive impact, but one that is difficult to perceive or measure, so that little “credit” is given to the innovation. To remedy this situation, it will be important to undertake education campaigns to inform any skeptical farmers, consumers, or NGOs about the nutritional benefits of GR (assuming a successful variety is developed) and its benefits for farmers. Such campaigns will be important for ensuring widespread adoption as well as giving due credit once it is adopted.

Many members of the educated general public in Asia are convinced that most new technologies hurt farmers, especially if the corporate sector is involved in the technology. To some extent, this is a legacy of the Green Revolution, which is still viewed with skepticism by many even though it increased productivity, has been adopted widely by farmers, and was a major force in averting the widespread famines forecast by many observers. As a specific example, many people assume that because of the corporate sector’s involvement in the origins of GR, farmers will need to purchase this seed every year. While this is true for many crops in developed economies, no company at present has plans to commercialize GR in developing countries. In addition, the technology to create GR was donated by its inventors and private companies holding intellectual property licenses so that any organization or farmer can freely distribute or replant seed. Thus, farmers will be under no compulsion to buy new seeds every year, but this fact will need to be clearly and creatively communicated to the public. The public may also need to be convinced that a reasonable share of benefits from adoption of GR goes to farmers. Economists typically assume that adoption by farmers is prima facie evidence that it provides them benefits, but this line of reasoning is not necessarily convincing to others.

Future Potential and Lessons for Other Biofortification Efforts

GR technology still needs considerable research investment to be viable in farmers’ fields and to meet a rigorous standard for consumer safety. Moving past regulatory hurdles will not be easy, and thus, this crop is unlikely to play a role in meeting micronutrient needs before the next decade.

From the political standpoint, there are still no advocates for this technology within Asian countries. Ministries of Agriculture and NARS are production-oriented by training and mandate; thus, they have little interest in a project that diverts attention from production goals and requires innovative cooperation with nutritional science. The IP arrangements have not given participating NARS a sense of ownership or control of this technology. Ministries of Health may find that biofortification poses a threat to their traditional programs, although it can potentially save lives and government expenditures in the long run. NGOs have yet to embrace this technology.

To move forward, it seems clear that GR must be agronomically viable at a minimum. To be acceptable to consumers and accomplish its nutritional goals will require that countries make some strategic decisions about implementation, adoption, and promotion. Such decisions include desirable beta-carotene levels, target populations, desirable agronomic characteristics, and methods for distribution and promotion. These choices would be best informed if the health and agricultural policy-makers can agree on the need for and potential benefits from this technology and if NGOs who work with the poor embrace it. As this approach to biofortification is relatively challenging, future investments in research need to increasingly be driven by policy dialogue.

The GR story provides guidance for other biofortification efforts. First, any biofortification of a staple crop using GM technology will likely encounter greater political resistance, as well as more challenges in safety assessments and delivery, than non-GM approaches. Second, any biofortification effort will need support and guidance from NARS and NGOs within countries with nutritionally deficient populations in order to be designed and targeted appropriately. These lessons for future strategy are explored further in the final article in this special issue.

Endnotes

¹ Rockefeller has shifted almost all of its agricultural development funding to Africa and currently has only some funding that is partly for GR in Vietnam, the Philippines, and China. These are legacy grants from earlier investments in the Rice Biotechnology Network.

References

Anderson, K., Jackson, L.A., & Nielsen, C.P. (2004). Genetically modified rice adoption: Implications for welfare and poverty alleviation (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3380). Washington, DC: World Bank.

BIOTHAI, CEDAC, DRCSC, GRAIN-MASIPAG, PAN-Indonesia, & UBINIG. (2001, February). Grains of delusion: Golden rice seen from the ground (2001 Briefing). Los Baños, Laguna: The Philippines: Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=18.

Dawe, D., Robertson, R., & Unnevehr, L. (2002). Golden Rice: What role could it play in alleviation of Vitamin A deficiency? Food Policy, 27, 541-560.

Dubock, A. (2005, July). Golden Rice—The partitioning of influence. Paper presented at the 9^th annual ICABR International Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology, Ravello, Italy.

Golden Rice Humanitarian Project website. Accessed on July 11, 2006, from http://www.goldenrice.org.

Greenpeace. (2005, March 16). Golden Rice: All glitter, no gold (Press Release). Amsterdam: The Netherlands: Author. Accessed July 11, 2006, from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/failures-of-golden-rice.

Paine, J.A., Shipton, C.A., Chaggar, S., Howells, R.M., Kennedy, M.J., Vernon, G., et al. (2005). A new version of Golden Rice with increased pro-Vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology, 23, 482-487.

Shiva, V. (2000, September). The "Golden Rice" hoax—When public relations replaces science. New Delhi, India: Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology. Accessed July 11, 2006, from http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html.

Stein, A.J. (2006). Micronutrient malnutrition and the impact of modern plant breeding on public health in India: How cost-effective is biofortification? Göttingen, Germany: Cuvillier Verlag.

Stein, A.J., Sachdev, H.P.S., & Qaim, M. (2006). Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of Golden Rice. Nature Biotechnology, 24(10), 1200-01.

Stein, A.J., Sachdev, H.P.S., & Qaim, M. (2007). Correspondence. Nature Biotechology, 25(6), 624.

Time Magazine. (2000, July 31). 156(5). Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601000731,00.html.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2004). Vitamin and mineral deficiency: A global damage assessment report. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved on July 11, 2006, from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Initiatives/GHI_2004_UNICEF_MI.pdf.

Ye, X., Al-Babili, S., Klöti, A., Zhang, J., Lucca, P., Beyer, P., et al. (2000). Engineering the pro-Vitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science, 287, 303-305.

Zimmermann, R., & Qaim, M. (2004). Potential health benefits of Golden Rice: A Philippine case study. Food Policy, 29, 147-168.

Artículo original: http://www.agbioforum.org/v10n3/v10n3a04-unnevehr.htm

Cita del artículo: Dawe, D., & Unnevehr, L. (2007). Crop case study: GMO Golden Rice in Asia with enhanced Vitamin A benefits for consumers. AgBioForum, 10(3), 154-160. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.

Artículo Propiedad de AGBIOFORUM.org

• By Stephen J. Hedges
  Chicago Tribune, May 14, 2008
  Straight to the Source

La Unión Europea inicia un nuevo debate en materia de producción alimentaria. Mientras los responsables comunitarios apuestan por reducir el número de pesticidas autorizados en los próximos años, productores y agricultores temen que esta medida perjudique la producción y que la reducción haga más resistentes las plagas en los distintos cultivos. Por ser sustancias con capacidad para acumularse en la cadena alimentaria, especialmente en pescado, carne y productos lácteos, evaluar su verdadero impacto es prioritario, aunque no es nada fácil; si bien el uso se restringe a los cultivos, puede diseminarse a otras fuentes, como el ganado o el agua.

• Autor: Por MARTA CHAVARRÍAS
• Fecha de publicación: 12 de mayo de 2008

En 1991, el número de pesticidas que se comercializaban en la Unión Europea rondaba los 900. Ahora, apenas llegan a los 200. Una simple lectura de estas cifras lleva a la conclusión de que sobre este tema se han tomado importantes decisiones. La mayoría de ellas han ido encaminadas a reducir los posibles efectos en la salud humana por la presencia de residuos en alimentos. Ahora, Bruselas pretende prohibir las fumigaciones aéreas, fijar áreas libres de pesticidas o zonas donde sólo se permita un uso muy restringido, asegurar la protección de las aguas y reducir a la mitad el número de pesticidas en el plazo de diez años.

Un uso controvertido

La posibilidad de que el uso de pesticidas deje residuos en los alimentos es real, aseguran los expertos

Un análisis de la Autoridad Europea de Seguridad Alimentaria (EFSA, en sus siglas inglesas) determinaba, en 2007, que de la evaluación de un total de 236 sustancias, 144 podían tener un riesgo potencial en salud. Científicos de la Universidad de Liverpool mostraban también en un estudio publicado en "Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine" la posibilidad de que algunas de las sustancias utilizadas como pesticidas provocaran cáncer. Según datos de la Oficina Alimentaria de la Comisión Europea, un 3,6% de los alimentos frescos que se venden en la UE contienen más restos de pesticidas que los que permite la norma. Para las organizaciones ambientalistas, la concentración superaría, sobre todo en uvas, fresas, lechugas y tomates, el límite en un 5% de los casos.

En la "Declaración de Ljubljana", del pasado mes de abril, se ha debatido una nueva propuesta parlamentaria. En ella los productores han expresado su preocupación al considerar que podría vulnerar la producción agrícola europea. ¿En qué se fundamentan? Aseguran que con ella podría favorecerse la resistencia a las pocas sustancias permitidas y que cultivos como la vid, los árboles frutales y las verduras no tuvieran las herramientas adecuadas para evitar o retrasar el desarrollo de parásitos resistentes.

Los defensores de esta declaración apuestan por mantener una diversidad suficiente de estos productos para reducir los riesgos de resistencia. Se trata, aseguran, de una condición biológica que no se ha tenido en cuenta, y que forzará, indican los expertos, el uso de un menor número de sustancias de forma más intensiva. La Comisión de Medio Ambiente, sin embargo, continúa defendiendo reducir, en un plazo de cinco años, el uso de químicos en un 25%, y para 2017 llegar a una reducción del 50%.

Alimentos con químicos

Protegen las plantas de plagas y virus. Pero, ¿también protegen los alimentos, o son más bien una amenaza? Los autores de un estudio realizado por la Food and Drug Administration estadounidense (FDA) elaborado en 2005 encontraron restos de pesticidas en un 91% de manzanas analizadas y contabilizaron 36 tipos distintos de tóxicos. Una de las mayores complicaciones para fijar límites de ingesta seguros es la diversidad entre dietas de distintos países y las distintas maneras de usar los químicos.

Según la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO), el mal uso de pesticidas puede fácilmente dejar secuelas en los alimentos. De hecho, afirma, ciertos tipos de plaguicidas como los organofosforados tienen capacidad para acumularse. La lucha por controlar los insectos, las malas hierbas o las enfermedades en cultivos debe hacerse extensible a los alimentos, ya que de ello depende que los consumidores tengan acceso a alimentos seguros.

TAMBIÉN EN VINOS

Los vinos que se producen de forma intensiva presentan restos de hasta 24 pesticidas que pueden repercutir en la salud. Así concluye un estudio realizado por el grupo ecologista Red de Acción sobre los Pesticidas (PAN, en sus siglas inglesas). De los pesticidas hallados, 16 están clasificados como sustancias cancerígenas, mutagénicas o tóxicas para el organismo. Aunque, insisten desde esta organización, algunos de los otros pesticidas, no clasificados como nocivos, sí que lo son.

El trabajo, presentado recientemente en Bruselas, se ha realizado sobre una muestra de 34 botellas de vinos que incluyen elaboraciones procedentes de Francia, Alemania, Austria, Italia, Portugal, Sudáfrica, Australia, Chile. Asimismo, en el mismo estudio se ha incluido un informe sobre seis vinos elaborados de forma biológica. Entre los vinos de cultivo convencional, el pesticida más común ha sido pirimetanil, un fungicida considerado como posible cancerígeno en EE.UU. pero no en la Unión Europea (UE), todavía.

La procimidona, el residuo considerado más peligroso por los expertos, apareció entre 11 de los 34 vinos analizados. Los expertos añaden, asimismo, que tres de los vinos examinados que contenían sustancias nocivas tienen un coste en el mercado de más de 200 euros. Y aunque los resultados fueron mejores en los caldos obtenidos a partir de cultivos biológicos, el responsable de estudio, Elliott Cannell, señala que este tipo de productos representa sólo un 8% de la producción total, y que la solución pasa por hacer más limpia la producción y endurecer la legislación sobre el uso de pesticidas en el cultivo de la vid. De hecho, existe un vacío y tolerancia legal con los vinos, ya que pueden llegar a contener más de 5.800 veces los límites legales impuestos al agua del grifo.

Información anterior es propiedad de: CONSUMER.es EROSKI

Fuente directa: http://www.consumaseguridad.com/sociedad-y-consumo/2008/05/12/176857.php

El artículo de CONSUMER.es EROSKI, llega hasta el punto donde se cita su propiedad.

 CASO COLOMBIANO:

Los cultivos modificados genéticamente (OMG o transgénicos) han provocado un incremento masivo en el uso de pesticidas y están fracasando a la hora de incrementar los rendimientos agrícolas o afrontar los problemas de hambre y pobreza en el mundo, ‹ según un nuevo informe de Amigos de la Tierra publicado hoy [1]. El informe coincide con el lanzamiento anual de los datos de la industria de los transgénicos sobre el cultivo de OMG a nivel mundial. [2]

David Sánchez, responsable de agricultura de Amigos de la Tierra afirmó: “Los cultivos transgénicos han fracasado al no aportar los grandes beneficios prometidos. En su lugar, nos encontramos que el incremento en el uso de pesticidas provocado por estos cultivos suponen una amenaza para el medio ambiente y la población a escala global.”

El coordinador de la campaña de transgénicos de Amigos de la Tierra Internacional en Nigeria, Nnimmo Bassey aseguró: “La industria de los OMG nos dice a los africanos que necesitamos cultivos transgénicos para afrontar las necesidades alimenticias de nuestra población. Pero la mayoría de los cultivos transgénicos se utilizan para alimentación animal en los países ricos, para la producción de agrocombustibles y ni tan siquiera son más productivos que los cultivos convencionales.”

Helen Holder, coordinadora de la campaña de transgénicos en Amigos de la Tierra Europa añadió: “Ahora está más claro que nunca que la Unión Europea hace bien en abordar los cultivos transgénicos con precaución. Los OMG no son la solución a los urgentes problemas ambientales y desafíos económicos a los que se enfrentan los agricultores europeos y de los países empobrecidos. Cada vez hay más evidencias de que en todo el mundo los métodos agrícolas más sostenibles proporcionan soluciones reales, al tiempo que desarrollan las economías locales y crean empleo en el medio rural.”

El informe de Amigos de la Tierra Internacional “¿Quién se beneficia con los cultivos transgénicos?” del 2008 muestra que:

La introducción de los cultivos transgénicos ha provocado un aumento significativo en el uso de pesticidas.
Estudios del Gobierno de EE.UU. muestran un uso 15 veces superior del herbicida RoundUp (glifosato) entre 1994 y 2005 y otro del Gobierno de Brasil, un aumento de casi un 80% entre 2000 y 2004. Esto tiene como resultado un número cada vez mayor de hierbas adventicias (o malas hierbas) resistentes al glifosato en todo el mundo, lo que provoca un incremento en los costes de producción de los campesinos y graves impactos ambientales.

Los cultivos transgénicos no solucionan los problemas de hambre o pobreza
La gran mayoría de los cultivos transgénicos comercializados hasta la fecha se destinan a alimentación animal para la producción de carne en los países ricos, y no para alimentar a la población empobrecida. Los cultivos transgénicos, como parte del modelo agrícola intensivo, contribuyen a la pérdida del medio de vida de los pequeños campesinos y no alivian los problemas de pobreza.

Las multinacionales reclaman que el algodón transgénico ha supuesto un gran impulso para los rendimientos del algodón, contribuyendo a aliviar la pobreza entre los campesinos. Sin embargo, estos incrementos en el rendimiento se deben a las condiciones climáticas favorables, la introducción de regadío y la compra de semillas mejoradas que no están modificadas genéticamente. Además, en bastantes países, los campesinos que pagaron el coste adicional de las semillas transgénicas terminaron gastando el mismo dinero en insecticidas químicos que los campesinos que habían plantado algodón convencional.

En general, los cultivos transgénicos no tienen mayores rendimientos que otros cultivos.
Incluso el Departamento de Agricultura de EE.UU. (USDA) reconoce que ninguno de los transgénicos actualmente en el mercado ha sido modificado para incrementar los rendimientos. El principal cultivo transgénico a nivel mundial, la soja resistente a herbicidas de Monsanto, no produce mayores rendimientos, y hay estudios que afirman que producen entre un 5 y un 10% menos que las variedades convencionales.

Los transgénicos siguen fracasando en Europa
Menos del 2% de la superficie total de maíz cultivada en la UE está modificado genéticamente y cinco países han prohibido ya este maíz de Monsanto por las cada vez mayores evidencias sobre su impacto ambiental. Francia, el país con un mayor aumento de superficie cultivada con maíz transgénico en 2007 acaba de prohibir su cultivo. Esto deja a España prácticamente sola en su apuesta por un cultivo transgénico que otros países europeos rechazan por sus peligros para el medio ambiente.

Una revisión sobre el sector biotecnológico europeo demostró que los cultivos transgénicos no están ofreciendo los resultados esperados. Por el contrario, los métodos agrícolas sostenibles, como la agricultura ecológica, están creando empleo en el medio rural y potenciando la economía agraria, además de aportar innegables beneficios ambientales. Repite

Un documento con preguntas y respuestas sobre los OMG, enfocado a demostrar que los cultivos transgénicos no ayudan a alcanzar los Objetivos del Milenio de reducir el hambre y la pobreza en 2015 está disponible en: http://www.tierra.org/spip/IMG/pdf/08_Preguntas_y_respuestas_esp.pdf
Notas:
[1] El Informe Completo está disponible en:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/FULL_REPORT_FINAL_FEB08.pdf
El resumen ejecutivo en castellano está disponible en:
http://www.tierra.org/spip/IMG/pdf/08_Informe_OMG_esp.pdf
[2] El lanzamiento de este Nuevo informe coincide con la presentación anual de “Estado Global de la comercialización de biotecnología”, informe del Servicio Internacional para la Adquisición de Aplicaciones Agrobiotecnológicas (ISAAA en sus siglas en inglés) una organización financiada por la industria de los transgénicos, que promociona los cultivos modificados genéticamente como beneficiosos para el medio ambiente, y como una solución clave para aliviar el hambre y la pobreza. La industria de los cultivos transgénicos sigue tergiversando la realidad al afirmar que los transgénicos reducen el uso de pesticidas y juegan un papel importante en la reducción de la pobreza y el hambre.  (Fuente: http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2008/02/80214.php; Autor: Amigos de la Tierra Thursday, Feb. 14, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Publicado en: COLOMBIA.INDYMEDIA.org)

OPINIONES:

Es de esperarse que la mayoría de los paises intenten (sobre todo los paises desarrollados) mantener una legislación  para una producción más limpia y estricta con el mantenimiento de los recursos de materias primas para la producción de alimentos, sin embargo, personalmente, es bueno ver una solución de los problemas que estos y algúnos en via de desarrollo tienen en sus mejoramientos de nuevos productos alimenticios, como es la Ingeniería genética.

Por otro lado, existe entonces la posibilidad de mantener un ambiente limpio con una producción eficiente, es entonces cuando los efectos (algunos, cantidad reducida) de  efectos benéficos sobre la bioconservación de los cultivos, puede ser reemplasada con una producción mucho más limpia, con la Ingeniería Genética, que reemplaza los pesticidas, por sustancias bioquímicas, fabricadas por la propia planta contra factores de riesgo , y para su protección fisico-química. Sin embargo, actualmente, hay una severa discusión sobre los alimentos transgénicos, o ingredientes obtenidos por microorganismos del mismo tipo (OGM's). Muchos estudios adelantados, muestran que nutricional y complementario a los beneficios de procesamiento, los alimentos genéticamente modificados por Ingenieria Genética, y con el acompañamiento de la Ingeniería de Alimentos, y Metabólica, puede ser de beneficios mutuos para la nutrición humana, como por ejemplo la producción de nutraceuticos, o sustancias que previenen desodenes metabólicos.

Asi entonces, en Europa y gran parte de investigadores de estados Unidos, han realizado proyectos donde la nutrición humana es antes un factor beneficiado, que contrarestado y limitado por la Ingeniería Genética, aunque, deberían haber controles más estrictos en el tema de los protocolos de producción con este tipo de tecnologías, y su implementación paises no solo desarrollados, si no tambien en via de desarrollo.

Como en el artículo publicado por COLOMBIA.INDYMEDIA.org es preciso saber que en paises de desarrollo pero con un alto grado de potencial de productividad como Colombia y sus vecinos, es posible realizar modificaciones con la Ingenieria Genética para estos casos, sin embargo, es sabido que la economía de tales paises en via de desarrollo y los fondos gubernamentales destinados a la investigación en el campo son insuficientes para una producción más limpia en estos paises, especialmente Colombia, en donde tal parece, estos dineros son destinados a la "solución" de conflictos a nivel socio-político, y tal vez por tal cosa, no sean desarrolladas tecnoogías para obtener este tipo de producciones. Por otro lado, Colombia, tiene instituciones dedicadas en parte a esas investigaciones, como el CIAT, y el ICA, entre universidades  públicas, que muestra entonces, contradiccionesy gran polémica por el tema de la Ingeniería Genética en paises en via de desarrollo.

COMPLEMENTOS DEL TEMA:

El uso de los Pesticidas en la Agricultura.

Pesticias, y la Ingeniería Genética en alimentos.

Más de 30.000 toneladas de pesticidas tóxicos contaminan América Latina, según la FAO

Pesticidas más seguros en camino 

Pesticidas: una problemática vigente

CRISTIANCEBALLOS

(Opiniones, y ediciónes)

Antes de que un alimento llegue al consumidor debe pasar por numerosas fases. En todo este proceso, y especialmente el que hace referencia al transporte, juegan un papel fundamental los proveedores, particularmente los que suministran materias primas e ingredientes alimentarios. La importancia reside en que de ellos dependerá, en buena medida, el nivel de seguridad alimentaria y calidad que pueda ofrecerse a los consumidores.

• Autor: Por MAITE PELAYO
• Fecha de publicación: 24 de abril de 2008

(Imagen: Jun Acullador)

Para asegurar que los productos alimenticios que se suministran han sido elaborados en unas condiciones higiénico-sanitarias adecuadas, los proveedores deben garantizar que cumplen con los requisitos regulados en su normativa específica: disponer del correspondiente número del Registro General Sanitario de Alimento (RGSA) o autorización autonómica o local y aplicar el sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos de Control Críticos (APPCC).

Riesgos, los primeros de la lista

La posible presencia de microorganismos en la materia prima suministrada, bien contaminada en origen o a través de manipuladores o superficies, un tratamiento higienizante deficiente o el crecimiento bacteriano por una conservación inadecuada, son algunos de los peligros a los que debemos hacer frente. También la presencia de otros organismos, como parásitos (triquina o anisakis) pueden contaminar la materia prima.

Los contaminantes físicos pueden ser perdigones, restos de embalajes o cristales, sustancias que pueden poner en peligro la seguridad del consumidor. Por último, los productos químicos como pesticidas, restos de antibióticos o tratamientos hormonales representan también un peligro y, al igual que los anteriores, deben prevenirse y controlarse.

Garantías de seguridad

El control debe basarse en los principios del sistema APPCC. Por un lado deben solicitarse y guardarse las especificaciones de las materias primas de manera que garanticen tanto el origen de los productos como de los envases y embalajes. Estas especificaciones son documentos en los que se detallan todos y cada uno de los factores que se consideren importantes para juzgar su calidad y seguridad, como la descripción de las instalaciones de producción, del alimento y su utilidad; su lista de ingredientes; tipo de envasado, cantidad y etiquetado, reglamentaciones específicas, condiciones de almacenamiento y distribución, instrucciones de uso y manipulación, sus características físico-químicas y microbiológicas, así como los planes de muestreo, análisis y límites de tolerancia.

Los certificados de análisis realizados por laboratorios homologados, así como la realización de auditorias, serán también garantía de calidad. Tener en todo momento estos documentos a disposición de las autoridades sanitarias. Es importante también que las facturas recojan el máximo de información sobre la mercancía: fecha de adquisición, cantidad, precio, empresa suministradora o lote).

Por otro lado, deben registrarse las posibles irregularidades. Resultará de gran utilidad una hoja de registro de vigilancia que compruebe parámetros de calidad específicos de cada alimento a su llegada al establecimiento, como el aspecto visual, la integridad del envase, las fechas de caducidad, la temperatura de recepción u cualquier otro dato que resulte de interés. A su vez es imprescindible controlar los alimentos en el momento de su recepción. Al aceptarse un suministro, se asume la responsabilidad, al menos en parte, de todos aquellos que lo manipularon anteriormente. Por este motivo, el control debe realizarse en el mismo momento de recibir el producto, para así poder rechazarlo en caso de no ser correcto. Además, se deberán realizar controles rutinarios periódicos sobre las materias primas e ingredientes. Determinados alimentos deberán ser controlados más frecuentemente que otros, dependiendo del grado de riesgo que comporte.

La importancia del transporte

Una etapa muy relacionada con la de los proveedores es el transporte de los productos suministrados. Ciertos alimentos, por su naturaleza, necesitan una temperatura determinada durante su transporte, así como una adecuada estiba durante el mismo. Tanto si el transporte lo realiza el proveedor como si corre por cuenta del establecimiento que lo adquiere, se deberá asegurar que las materias primas lleguen a su destino en unas condiciones óptimas para su utilización. De nada sirve cuidar la seguridad y la calidad de la materia prima en su origen si el transporte no resulta el adecuado para mantenerla. Un alimento seguro puede dejar de serlo si el transporte no se realiza correctamente.

Cada alimento necesitará unas condiciones de transporte que deben observarse minuciosamente. Los principales factores a tener en cuenta son, sin duda, el tiempo transcurrido desde que el alimento sale de su centro de producción u origen hasta la llegada a destino (cuanto más breve, mejor) y, muy especialmente, la temperatura. Los peligros a los que podemos estar sometidos son principalmente contaminación de cualquier naturaleza y desarrollo de microorganismos.

UN VIAJE SEGURO

Puntos clave

Introduction

This study presents the findings of research into the global economic and environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops since their commercial introduction in 1996 and updates the findings of earlier analysis presented by the authors in AgBioForum 8(2&3).¹

The economic impact analysis concentrates on farm income effects because this is a primary driver of adoption amongst farmers (both large commercial and small-scale subsistence) and is an area for which much analysis has been undertaken. The environmental impact analysis focuses on changes in the use of insecticides and herbicides with GM crops and the resulting environmental impact from crop production. Lastly, the analysis examines the contribution of GM crops towards reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from reduced tractor fuel consumption and additional soil sequestration (storage) associated with reduced- or no-tillage cultivation facilitated by the application of GM herbicide-tolerant (HT) technology.

Methodology

The report has been compiled based largely on an extensive analysis of existing farm-level impact data from GM crops. Primary data for impacts of commercial cultivation were not available for every crop, in every year, and for each country. However, all representative, previous research that was identified has been utilized. The findings of this research have been used as the basis for the analysis presented,² although where relevant, primary analysis has been undertaken from base data, most notably in relation to the environmental impacts.

The analysis presented is largely based on the average performance and impact recorded in different crops. The economic performance and environmental impact of the technology at the farm level varies widely, both between and within regions/countries. As a result, the impact of this technology, and any new technology (GM or otherwise) is subject to variation at the local level. Thus the performance and impact should be considered on a case-by-case basis in terms of crop and trait combinations.

Agricultural production systems are dynamic and vary with time. This analysis seeks to address this issue, wherever possible, by comparing GM production systems with the most likely conventional alternative that could provide competitive levels of efficacy, if GM technology had not been available. This approach has been used by other researchers (e.g., Sankula & Blumenthal, 2003, 2005).

Farm Income Effects

Methodology

The methodology for assessing the farm-level impact has been to review existing literature from as many years of relevant comparable data as possible and to use the findings as the basis for the impact estimates over the ten-year period examined. All values presented are nominal for the year shown and actual average prices and yields are used for each year. The base currency used is the US dollar and all financial impacts in other currencies have been converted to US dollars at prevailing annual average exchange rates for each year. The approach reflects changes in farm income in each year arising from the impact of GM technology on yields, key costs of production (notably seed cost and crop protection expenditure, but also impact on costs such as fuel and labor),³ crop quality, and the scope for facilitating the planting of a second crop in a season. Through the inclusion of yield impacts and taking price changes into account, the analysis also takes into account the possible impact of GM crop adoption on global crop supply and world prices.

Clearly, this simplistic approach may overstate or understate the real impact of GM technology and therefore the authors acknowledge that this represents a weakness of the research. However, the use of current prices does incorporate into the analysis some degree of dynamic that would otherwise be missing if constant prices had been used. Where yield impacts have been identified for specific years, these have been used. Hence, the analysis takes into account variation in the impact of the technology on yield according to its effectiveness in dealing with (annual) fluctuations in pest and weed infestation levels.⁴ Nevertheless, much of the literature reviewed has analyzed one or a limited number of years. Where analysis is this limited, the impacts identified have been converted into a percentage change impact and applied to all other years on the basis of the prevailing average yield recorded. For example, if a study identified a yield gain of 5% in year one, this 5% yield increase was then applied to the average yield recorded in each other year. If more than one study identified differing levels of yield impact, the more conservative yield impacts have been used (e.g., in relation to the impact of GM insect-resistant (IR) cotton in the US, analysis by Sankula and Blumenthal (2003) put the average positive yield impact of Bollgard I at +9% while the average yield impact based on Marra, Pardey, and Alston (2002) is +11%; the yield impact used in this paper was +9%).⁵

Farm Level Impacts

Results

GM technology has had a very positive impact on farm income derived from a combination of enhanced productivity and efficiency gains (Table 1). In 2005, the direct global farm income benefit from GM crops was $5 billion. If the additional income arising from second crop soybeans in Argentina is considered, this income gain rises to $5.6 billion. This is equivalent to having added between 3.6% and 4.0% to the value of global production of the four main crops of soybeans, maize, canola, and cotton, which is a substantial impact. Since 1996, farm incomes have increased by $24.2 billion, or $27 billion inclusive of second crop soybean gains in Argentina.

The largest gains in farm income have arisen in the soybean sector, largely from cost savings, where the $2.84 billion additional income generated by GM HT soybeans in 2005 has been equivalent to adding 7.1% to the value of the crop in the GM growing countries, or adding the equivalent of 6.05% to the $47 billion value of the global soybean crop in 2005. These economic benefits should, however, be placed within the context of a significant increase in the level of soybean production in the main GM adopting countries. Since 1996, both the soybean area and production in the leading soybean producing countries of the US, Brazil, and Argentina increased by 58% and 65%, respectively.

Substantial gains have also arisen in the cotton sector through a combination of higher yields and lower costs. In 2005, cotton farm income levels in the GM adopting countries increased by $1.9 billion and since 1996, the sector has benefited from an additional $8.44 billion. The 2005 income gains are equivalent to adding 13.3% to the value of the cotton crop in these countries, or 7.3% to the $26 billion value of total global cotton production. This is a substantial increase in value added terms for two new cotton seed technologies.

Significant increases to farm incomes have also resulted in the maize and canola sectors. The combination of GM IR and GM HT technology in maize has boosted farm incomes by more than $3.1 billion since 1996. In the North American canola sector, an additional $893 million has been generated.

Table 2 summarizes farm income impacts in key GM adopting countries. This highlights the important farm income benefit arising from GM HT soybeans in Argentina, GM IR cotton in China, and a range of GM cultivars in the US. It also illustrates the growing level of farm income benefits being obtained in developing countries such as South Africa, Paraguay, India, the Philippines, and Mexico.

In terms of the division of the economic benefits obtained by farmers in developing countries relative to farmers in developed countries, Table 3 shows that in 2005, the majority of the farm income benefits (55%) have been earned by developing country farmers. The vast majority of these income gains for developing country farmers have been from GM IR cotton and GM HT soybeans.⁶

Examination of the cost farmers pay for accessing GM technology relative to the total gains derived shows that across the four main GM crops, the total cost was equal to about 26% of the total farm income gains (Table 4). For farmers in developing countries the total cost is equal to roughly 13% of total farm income gains, while for farmers in developed countries the cost is about 38% of the total farm income gain. While circumstances vary between countries, the higher share of total gains derived by farmers in developing countries relative to farmers in developed countries reflects factors such as weaker provision and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

In addition to these quantifiable direct impacts on farm profitability, there have been other important, indirect impacts that are more difficult to quantify (e.g., facilitation of adoption of reduced- or no-tillage systems, reduced production risk, convenience, reduced exposure of farmers and farm workers to pesticides, and improved crop quality). These less tangible benefits have often been cited by GM-adopting farmers as having been important influences for adoption of the technology and, therefore, exclusion of these impacts from the analysis in this paper is a limitation of the methodology, although it suggests that the farm income benefits quantified are conservative.

Environmental Impacts from Changes in Insecticide and Herbicide Use

Methodology

The most common way in which changes in pesticide use with GM crops have been presented is in terms of the volume (quantity) of pesticide applied. While comparisons of total pesticide volume used in GM and non-GM crop production systems can be a useful indicator of environmental impacts, it is an imperfect measure because it does not account for differences in the specific pest-control programs used in GM and non-GM cropping systems. For example, different specific products used in GM versus conventional crop systems, differences in the rate of pesticides used for efficacy, and differences in the environmental characteristics (mobility, persistence, etc.) are all masked in general comparisons of total pesticide volumes used.

To provide a more robust measurement of the environmental impact of GM crops, the analysis presented below includes both an assessment of pesticide active ingredient use, as well as an assessment of the specific pesticides used via an indicator known as the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ). This universal indicator, developed by Kovach, Petzoldt, Degni, and Tette (1992) and updated annually, effectively integrates the various environmental impacts of individual pesticides into a single 'field value per hectare.' This provides a more balanced assessment of the impact of GM crops on the environment as it draws on all of the key toxicity and environmental exposure data related to individual products (as applicable to impacts on farm workers, consumers, and ecology) and provides a consistent and comprehensive measure of environmental impact. Readers should note, however, that the EIQ is an indicator only and therefore does not take into account all environmental issues and impacts.

The EIQ value is multiplied by the amount of pesticide active ingredient (ai) used per hectare to produce a field EIQ value. For example, the EIQ rating for glyphosate is 15.3. By using this rating multiplied by the amount of glyphosate used per hectare (e.g., a hypothetical example of 1.1 kg applied per ha), the field EIQ value for glyphosate would be equivalent to 16.83/ha.

The EIQ indicator used is therefore a comparison of the field EIQ/ha for conventional versus GM crop production systems, with the total environmental impact or load of each system a direct function of respective field EIQ/ha values and the area planted to each type of production (GM versus non-GM). The use of environmental indicators is commonly used by researchers and the EIQ indicator has been cited by Brimner, Gallivan, and Stephenson (2004) in a study comparing the environmental impacts of GM and non-GM canola.

The EIQ methodology was used to calculate and compare typical EIQ values for conventional and GM crops and then aggregate these values to a national level. The level of pesticide use on the respective areas planted to conventional and GM crops in each year was compared with the level of pesticide use that would otherwise have probably occurred if the whole crop, in each year, had been produced using conventional technology. This is based on the approach used by Sankula and Blumenthal (2003)⁷ that identifies and utilizes typical herbicide or insecticide treatment regimes for conventional and GM crops provided by extension and research advisors in each sector or country. This approach was selected to address gaps in the availability of herbicide or insecticide usage data in most countries that differentiate between GM and conventional crops. Additionally, this allows comparisons to be made between GM and non-GM cropping systems when GM accounts for a large proportion of the total crop planted area. For example, in the case of soybeans in several countries, more than 60% of the total soybean crop planted area are GM. It is not reasonable to compare the production practices of these two groups as the remaining non-adopters may be farmers in a region characterized by lower-than-average weed or pest pressures or with a tradition of less intensive production systems, and hence, lower-than-average pesticide use.

Results

GM crops have contributed to a significant reduction in the global environmental impact of production agriculture (Table 5). Since 1996, the use of pesticides was reduced by 224 million kg of active ingredient (a 6.9% reduction) and the overall environmental impact associated with pesticide use on these crops was reduced by 15.3%. In absolute terms, the largest environmental gain has been associated with the adoption of GM HT soybeans and reflects the large share of global soybean plantings accounted for by GM soybeans. The volume of herbicide use in GM soybeans decreased by 51 million kg since 1996 (a 4.1% reduction) and the overall environmental impact decreased by 20%. It should be noted that in some countries, such as in South America, the adoption of GM HT soybeans has coincided with increases in the volume of herbicides used relative to historic levels. This largely reflects the facilitating role of the GM HT technology in accelerating and maintaining the switch away from conventional tillage to no- or low-tillage production systems with their inherent environmental benefits. This net increase in the volume of herbicides used should, therefore, be placed in the context of the reduced GHG emissions arising from this production system change and the general dynamics of agricultural production system changes.

Major environmental gains have also been derived from the adoption of GM IR cotton. These gains were the largest of any crop on a per-hectare basis. Since 1996, farmers have used 95.5 million kg less insecticide in GM IR cotton crops (a 19.4% reduction), and reduced the environmental impact by 24.3%. Important environmental gains have also arisen in the maize and canola sectors. In the maize sector, pesticide use decreased by 43 million kg and the environmental impact decreased due to a combination of reduced insecticide use (4.6%) and a switch to more environmentally-benign herbicides (4%). In the canola sector, farmers reduced herbicide use by 6.3 million kg (an 11% reduction) and the environmental impact has fallen by 23% because of a switch to more environmentally-benign herbicides. The impact of changes in insecticide and herbicide use at the country level for the main GM adopting countries is summarized in Table 6.

In terms of the division of the environmental benefits associated with less insecticide and herbicide use for farmers in developing countries relative to farmers in developed countries, Table 7 shows that in 2005 the majority of the environmental benefits associated with lower insecticide and herbicide use have been for developing country farmers. The vast majority of these environmental gains have been from the use of GM IR cotton and GM HT soybeans.

Impact on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Methodology

Reductions in the level of GHG emissions from GM crops derive from two principle sources (Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), 2004; Fabrizzi, Morónc, & García, 2003; Jasa, 2002; Lazarus & Selley, 2005; Reicosky, 1995; Robertson et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2005; Liebig et al., 2005; West & Post, 2002). First, GM crops contribute to a reduction in fuel use due to less frequent herbicide or insecticide applications and a reduction in the energy use in soil cultivation. For example, Lazarus and Selley (2005) estimated that one pesticide spray application uses 1.045 liters of fuel, which is equivalent to 2.87 kg/ha of carbon dioxide emissions. In this analysis, we used the conservative assumption that only GM IR crops reduced spray applications and ultimately GHG emissions.

In addition to the reduction in the number of herbicide applications, there has been a shift from conventional tillage to reduced- or no-till. This has had a marked effect on tractor fuel consumption due to energy-intensive cultivation methods being replaced with no- or reduced-tillage and herbicide-based weed control systems. The GM HT crop in which this is most evident is GM HT soybeans. Here, adoption of the technology has made an important contribution to facilitating the adoption of reduced- or no-tillage farming.⁸ Before the introduction of GM HT soybean cultivars, no-tillage systems were practiced by some farmers using a number of herbicides and with varying degrees of success. The opportunity for growers to control weeds with a non-residual foliar herbicide as a "burndown" pre-seeding treatment, followed by a post-emergent treatment when the soybean crop became established, has made the no-tillage system more reliable, technically viable, and commercially attractive. These technical advantages combined with the cost advantages have contributed to the rapid adoption of GM HT cultivars and the near doubling of the no-tillage soybean area in the US (also more than a five-fold increase in Argentina). In both countries, GM HT soybeans are estimated to account for 95% of the no-tillage soybean crop area.

Substantial growth in no-tillage production systems have also occurred in Canada, where the no-tillage canola area increased from 0.8 million ha to 2.6 million ha, which is equal to about half of the total canola area, between 1996 and 2005 (95% of the no-tillage canola area is planted with GM HT cultivars). Similarly the area planted to no-tillage in the US cotton crop increased from 0.2 million ha to 1 million ha over the same period (of which 86% is planted to GM HT cultivars).

The fuel savings we used resulting from changes in tillage systems are drawn from estimates from studies by Jasa (2002) and CTIC (2004). The adoption of no-tillage farming systems is estimated to reduce cultivation fuel usage by 32.52 liters/ha compared with traditional conventional tillage, and 14.7 liters/ha compared with the average of reduced-tillage cultivation. In turn, this results in reductions of carbon dioxide emissions of 89.44 kg/ha and 40.43 kg/ha, respectively.

Secondly, the use of no-till and reduced-till⁹ farming systems that utilize less plowing increase the amount of organic carbon (in the form of crop residue) that is stored or sequestered in the soil. This carbon sequestration reduces carbon dioxide emissions to the environment. Rates of carbon sequestration have been calculated for cropping systems using normal tillage and reduced tillage and these were incorporated in our analysis on how GM crop adoption has played an important facilitating role in increasing carbon sequestration, and ultimately on reducing the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Of course, the amount of carbon sequestered varies by soil type, cropping system and eco-region. In North America, the International Panel on Climate Change estimates that the conversion from conventional tillage to no-tillage systems stores between 50 kg carbon/ha per year and 1,300 kg carbon/ha per year (average 300 kg carbon/ha per year). In the analysis presented below, a conservative saving of 300 kg carbon/ha per year was applied to all no-tillage agriculture and 100 kg carbon/ha per year was applied to reduced-tillage agriculture. Where some countries aggregate their no-and reduced-till data, the reduced-tillage savings value of 100 kg carbon/ha per year was used. One kg of carbon sequestered is equivalent to 3.67 kg of carbon dioxide. These assumptions were applied to the reduced pesticide spray applications data on GM IR crops, derived from the farm income literature review, and the GM HT crop areas using no or reduced tillage (limited to the GM HT soybean crops in North and South America and GM HT canola crop in Canada).¹⁰

Table 8 summarizes the impact on GHG emissions associated with the planting of GM crops between 1996 and 2005. In 2005, the permanent carbon dioxide savings from reduced fuel use associated with GM crops was 0.962 billion kg. This is equivalent to removing 430,000 cars from the road for a year.

The additional soil carbon sequestration gains resulting from reduced tillage with GM crops accounted for a reduction in 8.05 billion kg of carbon dioxide emissions in 2005. This is equivalent to removing nearly 3.6 million cars from the roads for a year. In total, the carbon savings from reduced fuel use and soil carbon sequestration in 2005 were equal to removing 4 million cars from the road (equal to 17% of all registered cars in the UK).

Concluding Comments

This study quantified the cumulative global impact of GM technology between 1996 and 2005 on farm income, pesticide usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis shows that there have been substantial economic benefits at the farm level, amounting to a cumulative total of $27 billion. The majority of this has been derived by farmers in developing countries. GM technology has also resulted in 224 million kg less pesticide use by growers and a 15.3% reduction in the environmental impact associated with pesticide use. GM crops have also made a significant contribution to facilitating a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 9 billion kg in 2005, equivalent to removing 4 million cars from the roads for a year. The impacts identified are, however, probably conservative, reflecting the limitations of the methodologies used to estimate each of the three main categories of impact and the limited availability of relevant data. As such, subsequent research might usefully extend the analysis to incorporate more sophisticated consideration of dynamic economic impacts and some of the less tangible economic impacts (e.g., on labor savings). Further analysis of the environmental impact might also usefully include additional environmental indicators, such as impact on soil erosion.

Endnotes

¹ Readers should note that some data presented in this paper are not directly comparable with data presented in the AgBioForum 8(2&3) paper because the current paper takes into account the availability of new data and analysis (including revisions to data applicable to earlier years).

² Where several pieces of research of relevance to one subject (e.g., the impact of using a GM trait on the yield of a crop) have been identified, the findings used have been largely based on the most conservative finding.

³ Inclusion of impact on these categories of cost are, however, more limited than the impacts on seed and crop protection costs because only a few authors reviewed have included consideration of such costs in their analysis.

⁴ Examples where such data is available include the impact of Bt cotton in India (see Bennett et al., 2004; APCoAB, 2006), in Mexico (see Traxler et al., 2001; Monsanto Comercial Mexico, 2004) and in the US (see Sankala & Blumenthal, 2003, 2005; Mullins & Hudson, 2004).

⁵ The average base yield has been adjusted downward (if necessary) to account for any positive yield impact of the technology. In this way the impact on total production of any yield gains is not overstated. The authors do, however, acknowledge that the use of this assumption may still over- or understate the yield effects in some years because yield impact findings from a limited number of years have been used as the basis for estimating impact in other years. However, in the absence of comprehensive yield impact analysis for each trait, country and year, the authors consider this an appropriate approach to take in order to estimate cumulative impact.

⁶ The authors acknowledge that the classification of different countries into developing or developed country status affects the distribution of benefits between these two categories of country. The definition used in this paper is consistent with the definition used by James (2006).

⁷ Also applied by others, e.g., Kleiter et al. (2005).

⁸ See, for example, CTIC (2002).

⁹ No-till farming means that the ground is not plowed at all, while reduced tillage means that the ground is disturbed less than it would be with traditional tillage systems. For example, under a no-till farming system, soybean seeds are planted through the organic material that is left over from a previous crop such as corn, cotton, or wheat.

¹⁰ Due to the likely small scale impact and/or lack of tillage-specific data relating to GM HT maize and cotton crops (and the US GM HT canola crop), analysis of possible GHG emission reductions in these crops have not been included in the analysis. The no- or reduced-tillage areas to which these soil carbon reductions were applied were limited to the increase in the area planted to no- or reduced-tillage in each country since GM HT technology has been commercially available. In this way, the authors have tried to avoid attributing no- or reduced-tillage soil carbon sequestration gains to GM HT technology on cropping areas that were using no- or reduced-tillage cultivation techniques before GM HT technology became available.

References

Asia-Pacific Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology (APCoAB). (2006). Bt cotton in India: a status report. New Delhi, India: ICRASTAT.

Bennett, R.M., Ismael, Y., Kambhampati, U., & Morse, S. (2004). Economic impact of genetically modified cotton in India. AgBioForum, 7(3), 96-100. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.

Brimner, T.A., Gallivan, G.J., & Stephenson, G.R. (2004). Influence of herbicide-resistant canola on the environmental impact of weed management. Pest Management Science, 61(1), 47-52.

Brookes, G. (2003, July). The farm level impact of using Bt maize in Spain. Paper presented at the 6^th International ICABR Conference, Ravello, Italy. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/bt_maize_in_spain.pdf.

Brookes, G. (2004, July). The farm level impact of using Roundup Ready soybeans in Romania. Paper presented at the 7^th International ICABR Conference, Ravello, Italy. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/GM_soybeans_Romania.pdf.

Canola Council of Canada. (2001). An agronomic & economic assessment of transgenic canola. Winnipeg: Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.canola-council.org.

Carpenter, J., & Gianessi, L. (2001). Agricultural biotechnology: Updated benefit estimates. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.ncfap.org/reports/biotech/updatedbenefits.pdf.

Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC). (2002). Conservation tillage and plant biotechnology: How new technologies can improve the environment by reducing the need to plow. West Lafayette, IN: CTIC. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/BiotechPaper.pdf.

Doyle, B. (2005). The performance of ingard and bollgard II cotton in Australia during the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 seasons. Armidale, Australia: University of New England.

Doyle, B., et al. (2003). The performance of roundup ready cotton 2001-2002 in the Australian cotton sector. Armidale, Australia: University of New England.

Fabrizzi, K.P., Morónc, A., & García, F.O. (2003). Soil carbon and nitrogen organic fractions in degraded vs non-degraded mollisols in Argentina. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 67, 1831-41.

Fitt, G. (2003). Deployment and impact of transgenic Bt cotton in Australia. In N.G. Kalaitzandonakes (Ed.), The economic and environmental impacts of agbiotech: A global perspective (pp. 141-164). New York: Kluwer.

George Morris Centre. (2004). Economic & environmental impacts of the commercial cultivation of glyphosate tolerant soybeans in Ontario (unpublished report). Guelph, Ontario: Author.

Gianessi, L., & Carpenter, J. (1999). Agricultural biotechnology: Insect control benefits. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.ncfap.org/reports/biotech/insectcontrolbenefits.pdf.

Ismael, Y., Bennett, R., Morse, S., & Buthelezi, T.J. (2002, July). Bt Cotton and pesticides. A case study of smallholder farmers in Makhathini Flats South Africa. Paper presented at the International ICABR Conference, Ravello, Italy.

James, C. (2002). Global review of commercialized transgenic crops 2001: feature Bt cotton. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

James, C. (2003). Global review of commercialized transgenic crops 2002: feature Bt maize. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

James, C. (2006). Global status of transgenic crops (various global review briefs from 1996 to 2006). Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

Jasa, P. (2002). Conservation Tillage Systems. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska. Available on the World Wide Web: http://agecon.okstate.edu/isct/labranza/jasa/tillagesys.doc.

Johnson, J.M.F., Reicosky, D.C., Allmaras, R.R, Sauer, T.J., Venterea, R.T., & Dell, C.J. (2005). Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation potential of agriculture in the central USA. Soil Tillage Research, 83(1), 73-94.

Kirsten, J., Gouse, M., & Jenkins, L. (2002, July). Bt cotton in South Africa: Adoption and the impact on farm incomes amongst small-scale and large-scale farmers. Paper presented at the 6^th International ICABR Conference, Ravello, Italy.

Kleiter, G., et al. (2005). The effect of the cultivation of GM crops on the use of pesticides and the impact thereof on the environment. Wageningen, Netherlands: RIKILT, Institute of Food Safety.

Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J., & Tette, J. (1992). A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin. Geneva, NY: NYS Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html.

Lazarus, W., & Selley, R. (2005). Farm machinery economic cost estimates for late 2005. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.apec.umn.edu/faculty/wlazarus/mf2005late.pdf.

Liebig, M.A., Morgan, J.A., Reeder, J.D., Ellert, B.H., Gollany, H.T., & Schuman, G.E. (2005). Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation potential of agriculture practices in northwestern USA and western Canada. Soil Tillage Research, 83(1), 25-52.

Marra, M., Pardey, P., & Alston, J. (2002). The payoffs of agricultural biotechnology: An assessment of the evidence. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Monsanto Comercial Mexico. (2004). Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture (unpublished).

Mullins, W., & Hudson, J. (2004, Jan.). Bollgard II versus bollgard sister line economic comparisons, 2004. Paper presented at the Beltwide cotton conferences, San Antonio.

Parana Department of Agriculture. (2004). Cost of production comparison: Biotech and conventional soybeans (USDA GAIN Report BR4629). Washington, DC: Parana Department of Agriculture. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.fas.usad.gov/gainfiles/200411/146118108.pdf.

Pray, C., Huang, J., Hu, R., & Rozelle, S. (2002). Five years of Bt cotton in China: The benefits continue. The Plant Journal, 31(4), 423-430.

Qaim, M., & De Janvry, A. (2002, July). Bt cotton in Argentina: Analysing adoption and farmers' willingness to pay. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association, Long Beach, CA.

Qaim, M., & De Janvry, A. (2005). Bt cotton and pesticide use in Argentina: Economic and environmental effects. Environment and Development Economics, 10, 179-200.

Qaim, M., & Traxler, G. (2002, July). Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: Farm level, environmental, and welfare effects. Paper presented at the 6^th International ICABR Conference, Ravello, Italy.

Ramon, G. (2005). Acceptability survey on the 80-20 bag in a bag insect resistance management strategy for Bt corn. Quezon City, Philppines: Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines.

Reicosky, D.C. (1995). Conservation tillage and carbon cycling: Soil as a source or sink for carbon. Davis, CA: University of California. Available on the World Wide Web: http://vric.ucdavis.edu/issues/bulletinboard/soilconf/contill.pdf.

Rice, M. E. 2004. Transgenic rootworm corn: Assessing potential agronomic, economic, and environmental benefits. Plant Health Progress. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/php/review/2004/rootworm/.

Robertson, G.P., Paul, E.A., & Harwood, R.R. (2000). Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: Contributions of individual gases to the radioactive forces of the atmosphere. Science, 289, 1922-1925.

Sankula, S., & Blumenthal, E. (2003). Impacts on US