If agriculture is 'the backbone of the economy', is genetically modifying crops in India wise?

I've recently read an article by Kaur et al., 2013, which explores precisely this idea of whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can help mitigate the impacts of climate change on food security in the future, using India as an example. 

The authors address the issue from 'An Indian Perspective', and this use of a specific case study helps focus in on these two extensive topics, climate change and genetic modification, rather than trying to appreciate the issue and potential solutions on a global scale.

This paper illustrated the ways in which the authors feel that GM crops are not a solution to mitigating climate change-driven food security issues in India: 

The agriculture industry in India

• 'Agriculture in India is the backbone of the economy' (p542).
• The only GM crop grown in India is Bt cotton. This has received a mixed response.
• It makes up 15.7% of the GDP and employs 55% of the workforce (p542).
• As it contributes so much to the economy, many people are concerned about the potential impact if the GM modifications did not have the desired effect.

The unknowns of GMOs

• The article points out that the success of GM crops depends on wider environmental factors as well as the genetic modification itself. Simply modifying the genes is not enough to make GM crops a success across India.
• The aim of GMOs is often to increase yields whilst reducing fertiliser/pesticide usage. The problem comes if the pests start to become resistant to the modified crops, which can cause crop destruction on a wide scale.
• There are many ecological, economic, ethical and health unknowns concerning GMOs, and this is before the unknown impacts of climate change on crops is taken into account.

Why won't GM crops suit India?

• GMOs have been argued to be more appropriate for large scale agriculture and, due to the small scale nature of most Indian farms (of which 80% are less than 2 hectares in size), they are not well suited. Indian farmers often cultivate many different crops on their small plots, and  cannot afford to leave space between non-GM crops and GM crops to reduce the risk of transfer of genes into the wild. 
• Monoculture crops are also very susceptible to widespread damage if attacked by a pest or disease, and the largest farms in India could be affected too.
• One of the selling points of GM crops is that they can be enhanced so as to not need tilling, a common process in agriculture which releases carbon when the soil is turned over. However this is not a beneficial quality for Indian agriculture as non-tilled crops have already been in production for a long time so introducing more no-till GM crops would not make a significant difference.
• 'In India...people of different religious beliefs live and jointly worship various plants and animals' p545. This means that there may be cultural barriers to the acceptance of GM crops.
• GM crops can be grown with varying success across a country. For example, due to regional variations in climate, culture and geography, the Bt cotton (GMO) grew more successfully in the North than it did in the South of India.
• There have been health issues associated with Bt cotton in India, which have affected both humans and livestock.
• Bt cotton has increased India's earnings from cotton export; however, it is difficult to weigh up these economic benefits against the relatively unknown extent of the health and ecological impacts.
• Many GMOs which are thought to be drought-resistant or nitrogen-fixing have not yet completed the trial stage and been proven successful, so there are few crops which are ready and available to incorporate into India's agricultural programme at present.

Source: "Green Beds, farmlands India" by Raj - Flickr: Green Beds. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Commons 

Much of India's agricultural landscape is made up of small plots like this. 

As a result, the article concludes that as the equivalent of $120 billion worth of food is wasted each year, it would be better to work to effectively regain and make use of that food, rather than to risk developing transgenic crops. So much of the Indian economy depends on agriculture, and there are so many unknown factors involved in the genetic modification process, as well as the unpredictable impacts of climate change itself, that if it went wrong the economic, social and environmental effects would be devastating.

Another study, by Aghaee et al, 2015, also expressed how developing countries often lack the established and stable agricultural infrastructure to support the integration of new crops, especially transgenic crops, looking at Sub-Saharan Africa as an example. Small scale farmers in these nations often do not have the credit to be able to invest in the setup for GM crops, are not trained in the management of them and therefore require outside help and sometimes lack the political structure to be able to instigate this on a wide scale.

These papers helped me to appreciate how, even if they were deemed to be safe, and were more widely accepted by the public, GM crops would still not be a viable option for mitigating impacts of climate change on food security in some areas of the world for various social, economic and ecological reasons. 

Thinking outside the crops - bio-geoengineering as a way to combat climate change

So far I've looked at the use of GM in relation to enhancing food security in the face of climate change. However, GM may also have a role to play in geoengineering, which is another strategy being considered to mitigate the impacts of climate change. 

This post will look at the potential uses of genetic modification in geoengineering projects.

What is geoengineering?

Geoengineering is where humans disrupt natural processes to mitigate the impacts of climate change, this may be through Solar Radiation Management (SRM) or Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). You can read more about some of the techniques here. They tend to operate on a large scale, as carbon dioxide and solar radiation are global-scale issues.  Think on a huge scale, reflectors of solar radiation in space, adding nutrients to the ocean and mixing dissolved, alkaline rocks into the sea are all possibilities which have been put forward.

This paper by Pidgeon et al, 2012, explores some of the early attitudes towards geoengineering, and reflected on how important public perceptions are in terms of the success of wider projects. The study found that the baseline level of knowledge in 2012 concerning geoengineering was very low, which may influence the negative perceptions towards its use. It was found that 'carbon dioxide removal approaches were preferred to solar radiation management' (p1) and that those who knew more about the impacts of climate change and were more concerned about it were more supportive of geoengineering plans.

How might genetic modification be used in geoengineering?

Using genetic modification methods to enhance aspects of a large scale climate change intervention is known as bio-geoengineering. 


Enhancing the albedo of leaves 

In this situation, the idea is to make use of existing agricultural practices, but to grow crops with leaves which have a higher albedo and therefore reflect more sunlight. Ridgwell et al, 2009, calculated that surface temperatures should be able to be reduced by around 1 degree Celsius in Central North America/Eurasia in the summer season. 

However, other studies have looked at the extent to which these cooling benefits apply and found that they tend to be limited to the local region where it is being implemented, and the season (Irvine et al, 2011). It has also been noted that the background climate will have a lot to do with the success of bio-geoengineering in that region (Singarayer et al, 2009).

Source. Imagine if this was able to reflect solar radiation.

Changing crop albedo is deemed to be a climate change mitigation strategy which could be suitable for developing countries, as it can be set up on a relatively small scale and budget in comparison to other geoengineering strategies (Nogues and Azcon-Bieto, 2013).

So perhaps the role of GM could extend further than enhancing food security, it seems that there may be potential for genetically modified crops to help cool the surface temperatures which have been rising as a result of climate change, albeit on a more local scale.

Feed the world - with golden rice?

Around 250 million schoolchildren were deficient in Vitamin A in 2012 (Tang et al., 2009). A lack of vitamin A can cause impaired vision and growth, a weaker immune system, more common and severe respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses and many other health problems (Vijayaraghavan, 2000). It is particularly common amongst poor communities whose diet consists mainly of rice, which does not contain provitamin A. If we can develop a way to distribute Vitamin A more widely then it could be possible to make a difference to global ill health and malnutrition. This is especially important as we do not know what changes to the environment and therefore available food sources will occur as a result of climate change in the future.

Supplements have been produced before to combat this widespread Vitamin A deficiency, but they are expensive to produce and distribute. Staple foods have been genetically engineered to include the Vitamin A carotenoid, which is a way of distributing supplements in food which will be consumed as normal. Some argue, however, that this will not be enough to address all health issues associated with Vitamin A deficiency (Zimmermann et al., 2004).

Normal rices vs Golden Rice. Source. 

'Golden Rice' is rice which is enhanced with provitamin A, and there are mixed opinions concerning its efficiency.  A 2009 study found that around 50g of Golden Rice per day in developing countries which are reliant on rice would be enough to provide 90-100% of the daily Vitamin A that a child aged 4-8 would need, and could therefore help to combat this widespread Vitamin A deficiency in children (Tang et al., 2009). Other studies, such as Anderson et al., 2005, found that the welfare benefits and poverty reduction potential of this new strain of vitamin rich rice could even exceed the increased productivity benefits associated with genetically modified crops. Greenpeace published a document in 2013 highlighting their concerns over the potential contamination of regular rice, the unforeseen risks which may occur and the risks to food security and human health. They also commented on how some strains of Golden Rice are very inefficient, and therefore would require large amounts of rice to be consumed on a daily basis in order to receive the vitamin A benefits.

As with other genetically modified organisms, there are still concerns over the health impacts and the potential for wider unforeseen environmental impacts. Some say that the usefulness of 'Golden Rice' is being exaggerated as a way of increasing public acceptance of GMOs in general, rather than addressing the issue of malnutrition - that it is just 'a smokescreen to promote the biotech industry' (Scott, 2000:37). However, the study included a note on safety, stating that no adverse reactions to the product were observed. They did also note that participants only consumed one serving, and that longer exposure would be needed to make 'definitive assertions regarding the inherent safety of this food for human use' (Tang et al, 2009: 1782).

Research is still ongoing into the potential uses, benefits and issues associated with 'Golden Rice'. Extensive studies need to be done on the health impacts resulting from long term consumption, and further study is needed concerning the effectiveness of the product in providing the necessary provitamin A to help relieve widespread malnutrition and vitamin A deficiency.