Are there ways to overcome these barriers?

As the previous post indicated, there are a lot of barriers to the widescale acceptance of genetically modified organisms, and perceptions vary amongst the public. This post will try to identify some of the solutions which have been suggested in the literature to help break down these barriers and open up acceptance to GM produce as a means to mitigate the food security issues associated with climate change.

Research, research, research

Many of the barriers to acceptance of GM foods revolve around a fear of the unknown. So far there have not been many long-term studies which identify any potential health impacts of GMOs which may develop over longer periods of time, and this is a barrier to public acceptance of GMOs as people cannot be sure that the food they consume now will not impact on their health in the future (Rodriguez-Entrena, 2015). Once this research has been completed the results need to be disseminated in non-technical language to a global audience, in order to allow the public to make their own  informed decisions.

Jones, 1999, makes an interesting, and perhaps slightly controversial, point about how we actually don't understand all the genes we consume already, such as 'the viable yet unknown genes of tomato, cucumber, and lettuce in a salad, the bovine genes in a beef steak, the fragmented DNA in many processed foods, and the genes of the many micro-organisms that we breathe and swallow' (p584). I understand the author to mean here that GMOs are not the only foods of which we do not fully understand the genetic make-up, and therefore we should be less concerned about consuming them, but I don't think this will put the minds of those who do not support GM at ease. 

Labelling

Currently EU legislation states that GM produce must be labelled as so, however, there is no requirement to label the product if it was raised on GM feed. (Rodriguez-Entrena, 2015).

It is important to 'translate' the contents and production method of a GM product to the general public, so that they are able to make an informed decision as a consumer. One study felt there was a need for a 'transparent and balanced information framework that makes the potential risk understandable by society' (Rodriguez-Entrena, 2015:1).

Source A clearly labelled, non-GMO product

Source A clearly labelled product containing GMO ingredients

Preventing crossbreeding

Using genetic modification to alter the reproductive period of a species so that cross-pollination is less likely is a technique which has been suggested (GMO Compass). However this may not be an effective strategy as we do not know the potential impacts of climate change on the lifecycle of different crops, therefore the pollination season may change after which this method would not be effective.

Daniell, 1999, suggests that the risk of this 'gene pollution' (p467) can be reduced by engineering male sterility in the GM crop, which reduces the risk of the transfer of the GM gene to non-target species.

Gressel, 1999, contextualises the risk of 'superweeds', by noting that the GM weeds in question would need to be able to breed with other surrounding wild weeds, when in fact 'most crops have no interbreeding relatives in much of the world' (p361).

Trade policy changes and international negotiations

If a lack of trade networks is a barrier to acceptance, Komen and Wafula, 2013, recommend that nations which do not currently trade in GMOs collaborate with other nations to establish two-way trade pathways which will make the production of GMOs in both countries economically viable. They also recommend that future policies are created in line with WTO objectives which will make international trade more straight forward.

Barriers to the public acceptance of GM

If genetic modification were to become a tool to help combat the impacts of climate change, then it would need to be more widely supported by the public.  This post looks at some of the barriers to public acceptance of genetically modified food, and I will follow it up with a second post soon about the potential ways which have been suggested to overcome these.

Source. There is widespread concern about the unknown impacts of GM, and this is one of the main barriers to public acceptance. 

1. Does GM actually increase productivity and all the other things scientists say it does?

GM foods are proposed on the basis that they can increase the yield of a crop, make it more productive and also enhance its nutritional benefits to suit the needs of the expected consumer (Rodriguez-Entrena, 2015). However, there is some doubt over the evidence which has been gathered in the last 20 years as to whether these benefits are actually achieved (Maghari et al., 2011), and that even though the increased yield is put forward as a strong case for GM foods, some studies encourage us not to expect too much (Sinclair et al., 2004).

2. The unknown health impacts

Fear of the unknown often leads to expectation of the worst case scenario. Studies concerning the health impacts of GM foods have not been running long enough to identify potential long-term impacts, therefore, data is incomplete. There are also concerns over the naturalness of the GM product, which causes consumers to lose trust in it (Bredahl, 1999)

Furthermore, the uncertainty of the final product has given rise to rumours which are an easily established barrier to public acceptance and difficult to overcome. One study identified that some participants held the opinion that 'if a GM tomato is created by transferring fish genes, it will taste like fish' (Rodriguez-Entrena, 2015:n.p.). This encourages people who are unsure to stick with the non-GMO option, as they know what to expect. 

There is sometimes a discrepancy in the findings from bio-tech crop companies and other scientists (Maghari et al., 2011), where the companies have published studies indicating that there are no human health impacts associated with their transgenic crops, whereas other scientists  have published data which show otherwise. This makes it very difficult for the consumer to know what to believe. 

3. Suspected GMO-related health impacts

Several widespread allergy outbreaks have been reported, which are thought to be linked to GMOs. Some GM soybeans which are modified with brazil nut genes are thought to be able to trigger already existing nut allergies in the soybean consumer (Bakshi et al., 2003). Furthermore, workers in the Bt cotton fields in the Punjab region of India have severe skin allergies from close contact with the crop (Bernstein, 1999).

4. Environmental impacts

Environmentalists are concerned that the widespread introduction of GM food would change the current ecosystem irrevocably (Maghari et al., 2011). There are fears over the unknown environmental impacts that would occur if GM organisms escaped and crossbred with wild species (Darmency, 2016). There is potential for the disease-resistant aspect of GMOs to backfire and generate a 'superweed', which is extremely difficult to eradicate (Gressel, 1999).

5. Lack of awareness of the potential role of GM in food security.

Some studies have found that the potential for the use of GM as a tool to improve food security is not always associated with the idea of GM, for example, this survey of the perceptions of West African farmers (Adenle et al., 2014).

6. Trade barriers

Some countries do not allow the trade of genetically modified crops to or from their country. This means that it is not currently economically viable to develop widespread GMO production in regions such as East Africa where the majority of trade occurs with other East African nations (Komen and Wafula, 2013). Some countries are still evolving their policies on GM trade and are likely to be swayed by the position of the nations that they have established trade links with already.

Look out for tomorrow's post which will look at some of the suggested ways to overcome these barriers.

Case study: the hardy Himalayan gene which could offer a solution in the face of climate change

I came across this video which looks at how the potential of genetic modification to help resolve impending climate change issues is being explored. If you're interested it's worth a watch because it nicely sums up the various processes and why it is felt to be necessary and be worth investing expertise and huge amounts of money in, to access the latest technology.

It features the Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology who are working with german scientists to explore whether it is feasible to transfer the gene from a hardy drought and cold-resistant Himalayan plant into other plant species, to give them the same qualities. These are qualities which would be beneficial to the plant in the face of fluctuating extremes of temperature and precipitation which are becoming more common as a result of climate change.

The initial studies have shown that the modified plants can survive the drought conditions better than their 'normal' relatives, however the results are not clear until the genetically modified plant has had offspring.

The scientists are also exploring the potential that this technique might have in modifying cotton, a key cash crop in India. It is felt that it will be harder for the technique to be successful in the cotton plants as it is larger and has a more complicated genome therefore integrating the gene from the Himalayan plant will be more difficult. 

However, if it is successful, these hardy drought resistant qualities could be applied to the cotton crop, which would mean they would need less irrigation and could withstand drought conditions. This could be very beneficial for the survival of this cotton industry in the face of climate change.

What kind of a timescale are we talking?

Let's say, hypothetically, that GM crops were deemed to be the way to ensure future food security in the face of climate change, how long would they take to integrate into common agricultural practice? As I found out whilst writing the last post, there are many reasons why GM crops will not work in some areas of the world, so this is looking at places were GM crops could potentially be socially, economically and ecologically viable.

Godfray et al., 2010, collated some studies into a table which looks at how long it will take to develop different desired crop traits in different crops, some of which could help mitigate the impacts of climate change on food security in the future.

Source: Godfray et al., 2010: 815.

In terms of direct impacts of climate change on agriculture, increasing drought-tolerance and salinity tolerance will be some of the most important to help maintain agricultural production. However, this study does not anticipate these traits to be achievable until at least 2020, potentially 2030. 

The IPCC suggests that the 'proportion of the lands surface in extreme drought...is set to increase from 1-3% for the present day to 30% by the 2090' (IPCC, 2007:WWW), indicating a very rapid increase in 'extreme' events within this century. In 2015, transgenic strains of rice with increased drought-tolerance were undergoing trials and some studies such as Todaka et al., 2015 have reported an improvement in tolerance. However, the Todaka et al., 2015 study also points out how genetically modified species are likely to need to be drought and flood resistant, due to the fluctuating nature of extreme climate. So trials are underway with drought and flood resistant rice species, but it is difficult to know how long the further research which is called for will take.

Increased soil salinity as a result of rising sea levels induced by global warming means that in order to maintain productivity, crops will need to be able to tolerate more salt (Shrivastava and Kumar, 2015). This study by Yamaguchi and Blumwald, 2005, states that one of the factors which is slowing the development of increased salinity tolerant crops is an incomplete understanding of the 'fundamental mechanisms of stress tolerance in plants' (p615). The authors feel that the development process can be sped up by looking at different combinations of genes from salt-tolerant plants, though a timescale is not given.  Roy et al., published a study of all known salt tolerant genes in their 2014 study, and highlighted how these 'mechanisms of salinity tolerance' (p116) now need to be applied to crops to start to see the benefits of improved salt tolerance on productivity. 

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.