Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story

Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques

In recent years, there have been significant developments in biotechnology, specifically regarding New Plant Breeding Techniques (NPBTs). Such advancements have been driven by the need to develop improved and more sustainable crops while reducing pesticides and fertilisers. NPBTs include a heterogeneous group of methods that allow performing plant mutations more precisely than in genetically modified (GM) technologies, saving time and effort. Although some experts consider NPBTs an opportunity for organic farming expansion, the European Court of Justice in 2018 pronounced against their use in organic farming since all plants obtained by NPBTs should follow the same regulations as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). This study aims to understand consumers’ attitudes and viewpoints towards new breeding techniques. Focus groups and Q methodological approach were used to uncover consensus and divergence among organic consumers in seven selected European countries (Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom). Results of qualitative studies suggest that organic consumers are generally hostile towards NPBTs in organic farming. Using Q methodology, three distinct factors were identified: the “Risk Averse”, the “Technological Optimists”, and the “Socially Concerned”. The results highlight that consumers’ subjective knowledge and understanding of NPBTs diverge from the discourse of NPBTs lobbyists and proponents.

Identifying Farming Strategies Associated With Achieving Global Agricultural Sustainability

Sustainable agroecosystems provide adequate food while supporting environmental and human wellbeing and are a key part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Some strategies to promote sustainability include reducing inputs, substituting conventional crops with genetically modified (GM) alternatives, and using organic production. Here, we leveraged global databases covering 121 countries to determine which farming strategies—the amount of inputs per area (fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation), GM crops, and percent agriculture in organic production—are most correlated with 12 sustainability metrics recognized by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Using quantile regression, we found that countries with higher Human Development Indices (HDI) (including education, income, and lifespan), higher-income equality, lower food insecurity, and higher cereal yields had the most organic production and inputs. However, input-intensive strategies were associated with greater agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, countries with more GM crops were last on track to meeting the SDG of reduced inequalities. Using a longitudinal analysis spanning 2004–2018, we found that countries were generally decreasing inputs and increasing their share of agriculture in organic production. Also, in disentangling correlation vs. causation, we hypothesize that a country's development is more likely to drive changes in agricultural strategies than vice versa. Altogether, our correlative analyses suggest that countries with greater progress toward the SDGs of no poverty, zero hunger, good health and wellbeing, quality education, decent work, economic growth, and reduced inequalities had the highest production of organic agriculture and, to a lesser extent, intensive use of inputs.

The development of complex and controversial innovations. Genetically modified mosquitoes for malaria eradication

•

Using the example of mosquitoes that are genetically modified for malaria eradication through gene drive methods, a scientifically complex ‘living technology’, we show how complexity, uncertainty and risk can propel NPD processes towards a linear sequence of stages.

•

Although the need to control risks associated with gene drive technology imposes linearity to the NPD process, there are possibilities for deviation from a structured sequence of stages. This is due to the effects of feedback loops in the wider system of evidence creation and learning at the population and governance levels, which cumulatively impact on acceptance of the innovation.

•

The NPD and adoption processes involved in the use of gene drive technology are closely intertwined, and the endpoint for R&D and beginning of ‘mainstream’ adoption and diffusion are unclear.

When there is significant uncertainty in an innovation project, research literature suggests that strictly sequencing actions and stages may not be an appropriate mode of project management. We use a longitudinal process approach and qualitative system dynamics modelling to study the development of genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes for malaria eradication in an African country. Our data were collected in real time, from early scientific research to deployment of the first prototype mosquitoes in the field. The 'gene drive' technology for modifying the mosquitoes is highly complex and controversial due to risks associated with its characteristics as a living, self-replicating technology. We show that in this case the innovation journey is linear and highly structured, but also embedded within a wider system of adoption that displays emergent behaviour. Although the need to control risks associated with the technology imposes a linearity to the NPD process, there are possibilities for deviation from a more structured sequence of stages. This arises from the effects of feedback loops in the wider system of evidence creation and learning at the population and governance levels, which cumulatively impact on acceptance of the innovation. The NPD and adoption processes are therefore closely intertwined, meaning that the endpoint for R&D and beginning of 'mainstream' adoption and diffusion are unclear. A key challenge for those responsible for NPD and its regulation is to plan for the adoption of the technology while simultaneously conducting its scientific and technical development.

Time to Redefine Organic Agriculture: Can't GM Crops Be Certified as Organics?

The challenges of sustainable food production without damaging the environment for a growing human population have increased considerably. The current agricultural practices involving chemical fertilizers and even organic farming are not sustainable in the long run and can have deleterious effects on the environment. Thus, new, innovative solutions need to be identified and propagated for tackling this. Among such innovations, that can complement conventional as well as organic farming methods, are genetic modification (GM) and aquaculture. Yet, GM technologies often face resistance from civil groups owing to an 'unknown' fear, akin to Frankenstein's monster. How real is this fear? Our discussion rests on basic questions like, why can't 'organics' include GM crops that do not require chemical inputs for cultivation, and can GM crops like Golden rice qualify to be 'organic' if cultivated through organic practices? Do we need to rethink organic agriculture in the context of the present and future challenges of 21st century?

Invited review: Breeding and ethical perspectives on genetically modified and genome edited cattle

The hot topic of genetic modification and genome editing is sometimes presented as a rapid solution to various problems in the field of animal breeding and genetics. These technologies hold potential for future use in agriculture but we need to be aware of difficulties in large-scale application and integration in breeding schemes. In this review, we discuss applications of both classical genetic modifications (GM) using vectors and genome editing in dairy cattle breeding. We use an interdisciplinary approach considering both ethical and animal breeding perspectives. Decisions on how to make use of these techniques need to be made based not only on what is possible, but on what is reasonable to do. Principles of animal integrity, naturalness, risk perception, and animal welfare issues are examples of ethically relevant factors to consider. These factors also influence public perception and decisions about regulations by authorities. We need to acknowledge that we lack complete understanding of the genetic background of complex traits. It may be difficult, therefore, to predict the full effect of certain modifications in large-scale breeding programs. We present 2 potential applications: genome editing to dispense with dehorning, and insertion of human genes in bovine genomes to improve udder health as an example of classical GM. Both of these cases could be seen as beneficial for animal welfare but they differ in other aspects. In the former case, a genetic variant already present within the species is introduced, whereas in the latter case, transgenic animals are generated-this difference may influence how society regards the applications. We underline that the use of GM, as well as genome editing, of farm animals such as cattle is not independent of the context, and should be considered as part of an entire process, including, for example, the assisted reproduction technology that needs to be used. We propose that breeding organizations and breeding companies should take an active role in ethical discussions about the use of these techniques and thereby signal to society that these questions are being responsibly addressed.