Matty Demont

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

The adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union (EU) raises questions on the feasibility of coexistence between GM and non-GM crops. Regulations to ensure that different cropping systems can develop side-by-side without excluding any agricultural option are currently implemented or developed by member states. The aim of this review is to explore whether nationally or regionally proposed coexistence strategies comply with the general principles established by the European Commission that ask for science-based and proportionate coexistence measures. In the first part, existing legal requirements and potential sources of adventitious mixing are reviewed. It is discussed what type of coexistence measures might be necessary to keep GM inputs below the legal tolerance threshold of 0.9%. Concentrating on cross-fertilisation as the major biological source of adventitious mixing in maize, it is then assessed to which extent available scientific data on cross-fertilisation can explain the diversity of currently proposed isolation distances by several member states. In the second part, it is analysed whether currently proposed isolation distances reflect contending policy objectives towards GM crops that largely exceed the economic scope of coexistence. It is investigated how coexistence is intersecting with a wider debate about the role of GM crops in agriculture. Based on the analysis of existing cross-fertilisation data, it is concluded that some of the currently proposed isolation distances are not in line with the coexistence principles laid down by the European Commission: they are (i) excessive from a scientific point of view; (ii) difficult to implement in practice; (iii) rarely proportional to the regional heterogeneity in the agricultural landscape; and (iv) not proportional to the farmers’ basic economic incentives for coexistence. Hence, the range of proposed isolation distances cannot simply be explained by different interpretations of available scientific data, possible error intervals and remaining uncertainties inherent in the scientific process. It is argued that other than scientific issues must be at play. One might thus claim that coexistence has become an arena of contending values and visions on the future of agriculture and on the role GM crops might play therein.

Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question

The decision of whether to release transgenic crops in the EU is one subject to flexibility, uncertainty, and irreversibility. We analyse the case of herbicide tolerant sugar beet and reassess whether the 1998 de facto moratorium of the EU on transgenic crops for sugar beet was correct from a cost-benefit perspective using a real option approach. We show that the decision was correct, if households value possible annual irreversible costs of herbicide tolerant sugar beet with about 1 Euro or more on average. On the other hand, the total net private reversible benefits forgone if the de facto moratorium is not lifted are in the order of 169 Mio Euro per year.

Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives

The ongoing debate about the coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union (EU) mainly focuses on preventive measures needed to keep the adventitious presence of GM material in non-GM products below established tolerance thresholds, as well as on issues covering questions of liability and the duty to redress the incurred economic harm once adventitious mixing in non-GM products has occurred. By contrast, the interplay between the economic incentives and costs of coexistence has attracted little attention. The current overemphasis on the technical aspects and cost of coexistence over its economic incentives might lead EU policy-makers to adopt too stringent and rigid regulations on coexistence. Therefore, we argue for flexible coexistence regulations that explicitly take into account the economic incentives for coexistence. Our arguments provide a timely and important framework for EU policy-makers, who are currently struggling to implement coherent coexistence regulations in all member states.

Global value of GM rice: a review of expected agronomic and consumer benefits

Unlike the other major crops, no genetically modified (GM) varieties of rice have been commercialized at a large scale. Within the next 2-3 years new transgenic rice varieties could be ready for regulatory approval and subsequent commercialization, though. Given the importance of rice as staple crop for many of the worlds poorest people, this will have implications for the alleviation of poverty, hunger and malnutrition. Thus, policy-makers need to be aware of the potential benefits of GM rice. We provide an overview of the literature and discuss the evidence on expected agronomic and consumer benefits of genetically engineered rice. We find that while GM rice with improved agronomic traits could deliver benefits similar to already commercialized biotechnology crops, expected benefits of consumer traits could be higher by an order of magnitude. By aggregating the expected annual benefits, we estimate the global value of GM rice to be US

Self-sufficiency policy and irrigated rice productivity in the Senegal River Valley

64 billion per year. This is only an indicative value, as more GM varieties will become available in future. Nevertheless, such a figure can help guide policy-makers when deciding on the approval or funding of biotechnology crops and it may also raise awareness among consumers about what is at stake for their societies.

Agrobiotechnology in developing countries North-South partnerships are the key

Senegal’s high dependence on rice imports exposes the country to international market shocks with concomitant serious risks for food security. Since 2011 and triggered by high international prices, several initiatives to upgrade the rice value chain have emerged in the private sector. However, the major constraint private investors are currently facing is the insufficient supply of Senegal River Valley (SRV) paddy rice, implying that investment in productivity is becoming vital for the continuation of their operations, which are currently running below their optimum. The Senegalese government is investing heavily in the national rice sector, with the ambitious objective of achieving self-sufficiency in the year 2015. However, the program focuses primarily on extension of the area grown rather than increased productivity. We provide econometric support for policy making by assessing the determinants of productivity and technical efficiency in irrigated rice production systems through a five-year panel dataset of small-scale irrigated rice farms in the SRV. We found that due to the exacerbation of biological and institutional constraints in the SRV, rice growers had difficulties in maintaining productivity of their land. These constraints prevented them from further intensification, jeopardizing the national objective of self-sufficiency. Farmers exhibited modest technical efficiency levels, suggesting that, in addition to the proposed intensification strategies, substantial efforts in extension services will be required in order to achieve the goal of self-sufficiency. Improved weed and bird control as well as technological, organizational and institutional improvements were identified as key factors for boosting productivity and technical efficiency and, hence, these are target areas needing attention by Senegalese farmers and policy makers in their quest for increased food security.

Policy Sequencing and the Development of Rice Value Chains in Senegal

Agricultural production almost needs to double in the twenty-first century, putting tremendous pressure on agricultural resources. Most food production increases must come from more agricultural intensification in the South. This advances the need for a new green revolution: higher productivity and at the same time less pressure on the environment. Agrobiotechnology can contribute to this double green revolution. Biotechnology innovations are often scale-neutral and are therefore suitable for small farmers. Moreover, genetic modification offers special advantages for crops that have been domesticated for a very long time and which are therefore quite different from their wild relatives. However, agrobiotechnology also engenders risks and dangers, outlined in the paper. Multinational companies show little interest in small developing countries because the market is small and intellectual property rights protection is not effective. Not surprisingly, these are the very countries where food insecurity problems are most acute. In many developing countries the capacity to conduct biotechnology research and development is lacking, as is the legal framework for biosafety testing, patent enforcement and release of transgenic crops. This is illustrated by a case study on transgenic plantain bananas, developed by the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. The authors argue that legal and research capacity building are the main priorities. These can be achieved through public–private and North–South partnerships.

Rice Grain Quality and Consumer Preferences: A Case Study of Two Rural Towns in the Philippines

In response to the world food crisis in 2008, Senegal developed a productivist national food self‐sufficiency programme. However, the critical question is not whether the programme can meet its ambitious target of self‐sufficiency in rice production by 2015, but, if it does, how will domestic rice reach urban markets, where consumers generally prefer imported rice for its superior grain quality. Information collected through interviews and a stakeholder workshop advances the argument that policy sequencing will be crucial in order to upgrade Senegalese rice value chains progressively. Any large‐scale investments in productivity will need to be preceded by investments in post‐harvest grain‐quality infrastructure before sector‐wide marketing strategies can be adopted that enhance the chain competitiveness of domestic relative to imported rice.

The social and economic impact of biofortification through genetic modification

Hedonic pricing analysis is conducted to determine the implicit values of various attributes in the market value of a good. In this study, hedonic pricing analysis was applied to measure the contribution of grain quality search and experience attributes to the price of rice in two rural towns in the Philippines. Rice samples from respondents underwent quantitative routine assessments of grain quality. In particular, gelatinization temperature and chalkiness, two parameters that are normally assessed through visual scores, were evaluated by purely quantitative means (differential scanning calorimetry and by digital image analysis). Results indicate that rice consumed by respondents had mainly similar physical and chemical grain quality attributes. The respondents’ revealed preferences were typical of what has been previously reported for Filipino rice consumers. Hedonic regression analyses showed that grain quality characteristics that affected price varied by income class. Some of the traits or socioeconomic factors that affected price were percent broken grains, gel consistency, and household per capita rice consumption. There is an income effect on rice price and the characteristics that affect price vary between income classes.

Bred for Europe but grown in America: the case of GM sugar beet

Genetic modification (GM) has been advocated as an alternative or complement to micronutrient interventions such as supplementation, fortification or dietary diversification. While proof-of-concept of various GM biofortified crops looks promising, the decision tree of policy makers is much more complex, and requires insight on their socio-economic impacts: Will it actually work? Is it financially sound? Will people accept it? Can it be implemented in a globalized world? This review shows that GM biofortification could effectively reduce the burden of micronutrient deficiencies, in an economically viable way, and is generally well received by target beneficiaries, despite some resistance and uncertainty. Practically, however, protectionist and/or unscientific regulations in some developed countries raise the (perceived) bar for implementation in target countries.