GM crops help fight hunger by increasing yields and reducing costs for farmers. They can be tailored to address local needs in developing countries by enhancing locally grown crops with traits like insect or drought resistance. However, controversies over GM safety and corporate influence continue in Europe, where regulations have blocked most GM crop cultivation. With the global population expected to increase by 2 billion by 2050, attitudes must shift to enable innovation that can boost food security and availability.

1. 40 Vol 29 Issue 1 ... More online
GM CROPS
Food security
Among the greatest challenges
facing mankind is the provision of
sufficient healthy and nutritious food
for an ever growing population. It is
a stain on humanity that one out of
every nine people on our planet go to
sleep hungry. According to the latest
Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) figures, about 805 million
people are suffering from serious
food shortages and about two billion
people do not consume enough
vitamins and minerals. There is a
desperate need to eradicate extreme
hunger and poverty and improve
the security of our food supply. The
Committee on World Food Security
defines food security as ‘when all
people, at all times, have physical,
social and economic access to
sufficient, safe, nutritious food, that
meets their dietary needs and food
preferences to maintain an active and
healthy lifestyle’. The four pillars
of food security are availability,
access, utilisation and stability.
The nutritional dimension is key
and integral to the concept. Food
security is a complex sustainable
development challenge, linked
to health through malnutrition,
but also to sustainable economic
development, environment, trade
and political stability. There is no
single silver bullet solution for
securing sufficient and affordable
food. Food scientists have a
very significant role to play in
shaping the food environment of
the future, increasing crop yield,
developing more sustainable ways
of eating and cutting food waste.
Technical innovation presents a
real opportunity to both improve
productivity and protect the
environment.
Genetic transfer
One of the key functions in the
hunger equation is the application
of food biotechnology and gene
transfer. Gene transfer occurs
naturally in the wild and is the
basis of evolution of new species
through natural selection.
Mankind took advantage of
natural variation by selectively
breeding wild plants and animals
to produce domesticated variants
better suited to our needs. We
have harvested technology to feed
ourselves ever since we moved
from our hunter gatherer past
to a more settled future through
organised agriculture. Gene
transfer by human intervention
has a long history in conventional
agriculture through deliberate trait
selection. It has had remarkable
success. In the 1960’s Norman
Borlaug used genetic selective
backcrossing to create dwarf
wheat which grew faster and was
more resilient. Borlaug’s invention
was credited with saving many
millions of lives.The introduction
of foreign germplasm into crops
has been achieved by traditional
crop breeders by overcoming
species barriers: as early as 1875 a
hybrid cereal grain was created by
crossing wheat and rye.
Genetically Modified (GM) crops,
first developed in 1982, have genes
added or removed using genetic
engineering techniques to modify
their DNA. The general aim is to
introduce a new trait to the crop
which does not occur naturally
in the species. GM methods have
the ability to significantly increase
yields and nutritional values with
the added environmental benefit
of reducing fertiliser and pesticide
use and economic cost. They can
also be used in the production of
biofuels and drugs.
Genetic modification of crops
can be achieved transgenetically
or cisgenetically. Transgenic plants
have genes inserted into them that
are derived from another species. In
many cases the inserted DNA has
to be modified to effectively express
the trait in the host organism.
Cisgenic plants are created using
genes found within the same
species or a closely related one,
where conventional plant breeding
can occur. Because of this it has
been argued that cisgenic genetic
modification should not require
the same regulatory scrutiny and
rigour as transgenics. GM crops
not only offer a real opportunity to
improve food security but they cut
the need for years of conventional
cross breeding. Even then it can
take 15 years to move a genetic trait
from the laboratory into the field.
GM technology is not inherently
dangerous; essentially it is no
different to the selective breeding
that we have been engaged in for
thousands of years.
GM technol-
ogy is not
inherently
dangerous;
essentially it
is no different
to the
selective
breeding that
we have been
engaged in
for thousands
of years.’
In the light of new European legislation, Sterling Crew, Head of Technical at Kolak
Snack Foods, reviews the essential role of GM crops in safeguarding the security of
our food supply, protecting the environment and improving our quality of life.
GM crops help
fight hunger

2. www.fstjournal.org 41
The widespread growth of GM
crops could be as transformative
as the original agricultural
revolution, especially in developing
countries where recent research
and development has targeted
enhancement of locally grown
crops. Such developments include
insect resistant cowpea for Africa,
insect resistant aubergine for India
and drought resistant maize and
rice that use nutrient resources
more efficiently. The planting of
GM crops has expanded rapidly
in developing countries, where
in 2013 approximately 18 million
farmers grew 54% of the world’s
GM crop. There is robust evidence
of GM crop benefits for farmers in
developed and developing countries.
Recent research has shown that on
average GM technology has reduced
chemical pesticide use by 37%,
increased crop yields by 22%, and
increased farmer profits by 68%. By
contrast in the last decade average
non GM crop yields in Europe have
plateaued.
Consumer perception and
protection
It is often argued that the debate
about GM crops in Europe is based
GM CROPS
Despite
the rapid
adoption of
GM crops by
farmers in
many
countries,
controversies
over GM
biotechnology
continue.’
on science, when in reality the
science is very clear. The general
scientific consensus and weight of
opinion suggests that that there
is little evidence that GM crops
present a danger to humans or
the environment. GM crops are as
safe as their ‘natural’ counterparts.
However, the advancing science is
not carrying public opinion with it
and the technology does not enjoy
widespread political support. The
memory of ‘Frankenstein foods’
sticks in the consumer and political
consciousness. There is still no
real demand for GM foods from the
major UK retailers as they recall
the late 1990s when there was a
consumer backlash which lead to
British supermarkets clearing their
shelves of GM foods.
An aversion amongst the
public towards GM innovation is
hindering its adoption. Further
work is required to promote its
safe use and more importantly
the dramatic benefits it can
bring. Some very effective Non-
Government Organisations (NGOs)
are making an anti GM case, that
often wrongly pitches progress
against nature. However defining
the GM crop debate as a contest
between objective science and
irrational, sceptical belief is not
helpful in public engagement. The
discussion is affected by strongly
held personal opinions that there
is something inherently wrong with
scientists ‘interfering’ with nature.
Despite the rapid adoption of
GM crops by farmers in many
countries, controversies over GM
biotechnology continue. Uncertainty
about the impacts of GM crops
is one reason for widespread
public suspicion. It is important
to communicate to the public the
rewards that GM crops can bring
as well as the risks of banning
them. Attitudes to biotechnological
innovation are putting our long
term food security in danger. A
key part of our role as scientists is
to communicate risk, to separate
pseudoscience from sound science
and to dispel unnecessary fears.
European Union legislation
The science of genetic crop
engineering has outstripped
the current European Union
(EU) regulatory framework. A
fundamental revision of GM
legislation is needed that strictly
follows principles of science
based evaluations, with approvals
grounded in trait assessment and
farming practices rather than the
method by which they are achieved.
It is reasonable to assume that
cisgenic GM plants present less
of a risk than transgenic ones, but
currently they are treated equally
in legislation. The approach should
be risk appropriate with safety
remaining paramount. Legislation
must ensure that planting GM
crops and selling GM foods will
not cause harm to people or the
environment.
The risk assessment for GM
crops is a scientific process
following the precautionary
principle but the management
and final decision making is a
political construct and the two do
not always marry up. Even though
GM crops are used widely in the
America’s, Africa and Asia, many
EU Member States are wary of
their impact on health, biodiversity
and the environment. Europe is
split between pro and anti GM
countries and because each crop
approval requires a collective
unanimous vote by Member States,
this has effectively blocked the
introduction of GM crops in the
EU with a consequence that much
of the technology and expertise
has moved elsewhere. The insect
resistant maize MON 810 is the
only GM crop currently grown
commercially in the EU. This
situation has hampered the general
global development of GM crops.
However in January 2015
there was a seismic change in
the European Parliament when
the Council approved new rules
on GM crops designed to break
the stalemate between the pro
and anti GM states. The new
legislation comes into force this
USA 40%
Brazil 23%
Argentina 14%
India 6%
Source:CalculationsbasedonISAAA(2014).SpecialBrief46–2013
ExcecutiveSummary,GlobalStatusofCommercialisedBiotech/GMCrops:2013,
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/executivesummary/
Canada 6%
China 2%
Rest of the world 8.3%
GM production of top six countries

3. 42 Vol 29 Issue 1 ... More online
GM CROPS
spring and will allow individual
states to cultivate GM crops that
have already been approved
by the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA). This may
create a unique challenge in the
UK where the current political
position in Scotland and Wales
is GM sceptic contrasting with
England which is GM optimistic.
Undoubtedly GM will become a
hot topic again. The new law only
applies to crops and does not
cover GM used in animal feed.
The current procedures for
evaluation and authorisation of GM
foods are laid down in Regulation
(EC) 1829/2003 on GM food and
feed, which came into force in April
2004. The safety assessments are
carried out by EFSA, according to
its published guidelines for the
assessment of GM plants. It is
interesting that so far EFSA has not
identified any GM crops that pose
a serious risk to human or animal
health. The IFST position is that it
‘welcomes the European Council’s
decision to give Member States
more flexibility to deal with GMOs
on their own territory. We hope that
this change in legislation will lead
to the controlled cultivation of GM
crops in the UK ‘.
Policies for innovation
Sustained political commitment at
the highest level is an imperative
for hunger eradication. It is
important that global policy
makers understand the complex
and interrelated nature of
biotechnological policy and
food security in its widest
sense. The current approach
to GM management relies on
risk avoidance rather than risk
management with too much
emphasis on the hazard, rather
than the way it is applied in
practice. A more appropriate,
proportional approach to risk is
needed which takes into account
the benefits of GM, including
stimulating innovation and
economic growth as well as
providing solutions to the challenge
of world hunger.
Innovation requires an enabling
environment where the risks and
benefits of GM biotechnological
science and ethical considerations
use rational decision making.
Policies need to be founded on
solid evidence-based science and
not driven by populist campaigning
and media scare stories.
Feeding the future
The good news is that FAO
estimates indicate that global
hunger is down by more than 100
million people over the last decade.
Despite overall progress, marked
differences occur across regions
with modest progress in sub-
Saharan Africa and Western Asia.
By 2050 there will be an extra two
billion mouths to feed. In addition
emerging economies, such as China
and India, are creating wealthier
people who naturally expect richer
diets. This is a problem because
meat and dairy use up significantly
more resources than nutrition
provided by crops grown for human
consumption. It is estimated that
the world will need to produce an
additional 60% more food to meet
this growing demand. If we are
to avoid the Malthusian concept,
business as usual is clearly not an
option. The security of food supply is
in danger unless negative attitudes
to GM crops shift.
There are considerations on
ethics, environmental impact
and consumer choice along with
economic concerns about who
ultimately profits, the so called
‘lining of corporate pockets’.
However, scaremongering over GM
crops hampers the fight against
poverty and is having a dramatic
impact on the world’s poorest
people. It is time to warn policy
makers that global food security
needs this new technology and
that ignoring it would make future
solutions more difficult to achieve.
We would be acting immorally if
we did not make the benefits of GM
crop biotechnology available to poor
countries. It is time to put a fresh
perspective on the essential role
of GM crops in safeguarding the
security of our global food supply,
protecting the environment and
improving our quality of life.
The security
of food
supply is
in danger
unless
negative
attitudes to
GM crops
shift.’
Sterling Crew FIFST, FCIEH, FRSPH, is Head of Technical at Kolak Snack Foods
Ltd, Vice President of the Institute of Food Science and Technology and Chair of
the IFST Food Safety Group.
Email: Sterling@Kolak.co.uk
Article available online at:
www.fstjournal.org/features/29-1/gm-crops