GMOs: a response or a potential response to the food and economic challenges of LDCs?

Genetically modified organisms, more commonly known as GMOs, have been a contentious issue ever since they were introduced into agriculture in the mid-1990s. South countries and Africa in particular, where only three countries have adopted GMOs for agricultural production - Burkina Faso (cotton), Egypt (corn) and South Africa (cotton, soya, corn) – do not escape this debate. Some see it as a way of boosting productivity and consequently of meeting food challenges and African agriculture’s need to be competitive, others, on the contrary, think that the resulting technical, economic and environmental risks are greater than the declared benefits. What is the reality in all this?

Gene modification and selection: an ancient practice…

Genes determine the physical characteristics of living beings (size, color…). They are passed down from generation to generation within a same species and, exceptionally, between similar species (e.g. horses and donkeys). Some characteristics allow those that carry them to better adapt to their environment (resistance to a disease, reproductive capacity…) and consequently give them more chance of handing down these qualities to their descendants: this is at the root of the natural selection cherished by Darwin.

Man has for a long time intervened in processes so that the animals raised and plants grown better meet his needs. The selection methods traditionally used in agriculture are to crossbreed individuals with the desired qualities and choose those of their descendants that have inherited the characteristics of both parents. The varieties we know today are consequently GMOs in the literal sense of the word, because they are plants and animals whose genetic patrimony has been modified by man and bears little resemblance to their wild ancestors.

However, a number of countries adopt a more restrictive definition and consider GMOs as living beings whose genetic patrimony has been modified by the tools of genetic engineering. The latter, thanks to interventions on cells, make it possible to directly introduce one or several foreign genes into the genetic patrimony of an individual: this is called transgenesis. This technique makes it possible to break down the natural barrier of species that prevents genes from different species from crossing. The controversy surrounding GMOs concerns the products of transgenesis.

The aim of transgenesis is to give organisms new properties (production of useful substances, new qualities) that it would take much longer, or would be impossible, to obtain with classic selection methods.
GMOs have existed for several decades in the medical sector through yeast or bacteria in which genes have been introduced that make it possible to produce vaccines or hormones for example. These GMOs are currently not subject to controversy: they are cultivated in laboratories and consequently in a completely controlled environment, and only the molecules they produce are used.

This is not the case for plants that are genetically modified for agronomic and industrial reasons and are destined to be cultivated in fields and to be used in foods consumed by man.

Agricultural GMOs: a review

The global production of agricultural GMOs is limited, but is constantly rising. In 2008, there were 125 million hectares of GM crops in the world, i.e. less than 10% of land areas, including half in the United States, and concerning 13.3 million farmers. The United States, Canada, China, Brazil, Argentina and India account for 95% of global GMO land areas with three main crops: soya (70% of global production are GMOs), cotton and corn.

98% of these GMOs are made up of two main types of plants: genetically modified (GM) plants that can produce their own insecticide which reduces their sensitivity to parasite attacks (e.g. GM cotton which is called “Bt Cotton”) and GM plants that are resistant to roundup herbicides and allow farmers to apply herbicides all over their plot without damaging the plants they grow (e.g. GM soya called “roundup ready soya”). This last category represents the bulk of GMOs cultivated today (over 60% of land areas). Certain plants have both characteristics.

From an agronomic and ecological point of view, the current GMOs present two main risks. One risk that has been identified is that genes from GM plants will be disseminated to “wild” plants from similar species: if the gene that makes a GM plant resistant to a herbicide spreads within populations of weeds, the herbicide in question will obviously no longer have an effect on them and it will be extremely difficult for the farmer to get rid of them.

One of the other expected risks is the gradual “resistance” to certain GMOs: a GM plant that produces an insecticide may end up wiping out most of the insects targeted. In doing so, the few remaining resistant individuals will be the only ones capable of reproducing and will consequently disseminate their insecticide-resistant genes. This “natural” selection has already been observed with “classic” insecticides and will obviously reduce the interest of these first generation GMOs.

We have clearly seen that the identified ecological risks are not linked to the fact that the organisms have been genetically modified by transgenesis, they are linked to the type of genes introduced into existing GMOs. However, it is still too soon for the scientific community to affirm that there are no risks from these mutations. This explains why France is promoting the principle of precaution.

Another fear also often expressed is that the genetic patrimony selected by humanity will be monetarized and passed down from generation to generation with the creation of a closed seed market held by a few major groups on which the future of world food would be dependent.

The development of GMOs in least developed countries: the example of Bt cotton

In the areas where AFD operates, it is Bt cotton that is at the center of debate. Burkina Faso is the first French-speaking country in Africa to authorize research on GMOs and subsequent field tests. Last year, 8 500 hectares were cultivated for seed production and the harvest that is about to begin will lead to the first commercial production. 118 000 hectares have been planned, half of which will benefit from seeds produced in Burkina. The tests conducted in experiment stations appear to show a considerable rise in yields and a two-third reduction in the number of insecticide treatments (from 6 to 2 on average). This would have a direct impact in terms of lowering pesticide consumption, reducing the difficulty of work and improving productivity, not to mention the beneficial effects on human health. However, other experiments outside Burkina Faso show a great variation in the productivity gains obtained (from 0 to 70%) with Bt cotton.

Indeed, Bt cotton does not guarantee yields: it seems that the insecticide toxin is only produced by the GM plant when it is fertilized well and is sufficiently watered during its key development phases. Moreover, this toxin is not effective against all types of cotton-destroying insects: the use of Bt cotton must consequently be seen as one tool among others to protect against parasites. Its use must not cause producers to become less vigilant, especially because there is a risk that either the insects targeted by the toxin may develop a resistance, or the population of those that it cannot control may increase.

More than the technical aspects, Bt cotton growing in Africa raises economic, institutional and organizational questions, particularly in terms of the issue of GM plant seed ownership.

In South Africa, the introduction of GM cotton has effectively helped protect cotton against parasites, particularly for small producers in the Makhathini Flats region.

However, the producer of these seeds is a global GMO leader and enjoys a monopoly on the cotton seed market. It has raised its prices to a level which means that farmers will have lower profitability.

Burkina Faso has chosen a process that allows it to remain owner of the genetically modified variety and the multinational company only owns the gene. It is also the only country where this company’s income will depend on producers’ income.

The agreement reached for the coming harvest sets the price for a dose of seed for one hectare at FCFA 27 000 (12 kg). This corresponds approximately to the saving made on treatments: the potential gain for the producer will consequently depend on the rise in yields.

The Burkinabese system may seem more sustainable than the one that prevailed in South Africa, but several questions still remain. How will the issue of refuge areas be managed (20% of areas must be non-GMO in order to limit risks of resistance)? Will some producers be obliged not to grow GMOs and what compensation will there be? Can production traceability be implemented? Some markets are requesting this as it is not possible to detect GM cotton by analyzing its fibre. Can we, for example, control the seeds and the planting? This is the only way to have an indication of the size of GMO surface areas. All these questions will be much more difficult to manage in the context of a small African farm than with large US farms…

What prospects for LDCs?

Bt cotton presents more advantages in contexts of intensive agriculture and high parasite pressure, such as in the United Stats or China.

However, the use of the current GMOs in the most vulnerable agriculture must be envisaged with precaution: the technico-economic advantages they may produce in the short term seem promising, but the medium-term agro-ecological and organizational risks are still not under control.

AFD does not finance any production, dissemination or promotion of GMOs. It supports capacity building in terms of biosecurity for actors in African industries that choose to use GMOs. In the framework of support to African cotton industries, some of which like in Burkina Faso have decided to use Bt cotton, AFD and the World Bank have allocated a budget to the Burkinabese national union of cotton producers (UNPCB) to finance training actions, external assessments and legal support relating to GMO issues.

However, it is advisable to remain open in terms of progress in GMO research. The production of new GMOs such as functional food, plants that provide significant amounts of substances that are beneficial to health (e.g.: golden rice enriched with beta carotene, a precursor of vitamin A), or GM plants that resist difficult conditions (saline or arid environments), may prove to be interesting for developing countries.

GM crops arouse so much controversy because for the moment this type of plant, whose benefits are clearly more obvious to the general public than the current GMOs, is at best at the research stage.

The controversy is also fuelled by the offensive strategy of the main current promoter which contributes to negative public opinion, particularly in France.

This situation complicates research efforts that could be made in order to make biotechnologies an important possible solution to the major challenges faced by the economies of South countries. These efforts must be led by public and independent research.

With this objective, although GMOs may open up interesting prospects, the fact remains that a technological innovation, however effective it may be, cannot alone remove all the constraints faced by farmers (e.g.: land insecurity, economic risk…). Finally, in Africa there is considerable room for progress in terms of improving crop management, storage (by reducing post-harvest losses) or processing. This must not neglected as a result of biotechnology being the only focus.

Anne LEGILE – Olivier GILARD – Emmanuel BAUDRAN