Global Change Biology Global Change Biology (2015) 21, 501–503, doi: 10.1111/gcb.12765
LETTER
IPCC AR5 overlooked the potential of unleashing agricultural biotechnology to combat climate change and poverty DAVID ZILBERMAN Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
The role that agricultural biotechnology can play in the mitigation of climate change has been ignored in the new IPCC report (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014). This is unfortunate in light of results seen in a growing body of literature, which show that genetic engineering (GE) has already contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and indicate that it can play a large role in both the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, especially under less-restrictive regulations. Conversion of noncropland to cropland is a major contributor to the greenhouse gas increase in the atmosphere. An important way to decrease pressure for land conversion is to increase productivity on land currently used for food and feed crop production. Here, GE has proven benefits and huge untapped potential. This editorial argues that GE provides powerful tools to meet the challenges of climate change and, at the same time, address problems of poverty. Unfortunately, some of the nations that express the greatest concern about climate change are also establishing regulations and a political environment that inhibits the utilization and growth of GE.
Background on genetic modification in agriculture Genetic modification of crops became possible with the discovery of DNA and the genetic code. This discovery led to critical innovations that established the field of medical biotechnology. Today, many widely used medicines are produced with GE technologies, including almost all insulin. Since the 1990s, agricultural sciences have been able to genetically modify crops by inserting traits, and this capacity has led to several major applications that have resulted in proven increases in the productivity of and benefits from major crops (Barrows et al., 2014a). It is useful to distinguish between three generations of GE cultivars. First-generation GE consists of mostly production traits, which includes insect and disease Correspondence: David Zilberman, tel. 510 290 9515, fax 510 643 8911, e-mail: [email protected]
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
resistance or herbicide tolerance. The second-generation traits include enhanced quality and composition, tolerance to abiotic stress, enhancement of nutritional properties, and photosynthetic efficiency. Third-generation includes the production of industrial fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals in plants. First-generation traits account for most commercial GE cultivars, with 75% of traits that are in the premarket stage. DroughtgardTM is the first abiotic stress (second generation) trait to come into limited commercial use, and secondand third-generation traits account for 25% and 75% of the traits in the premarket stage and field trial stages, respectively. So even with severe regulatory constraints, there is hope of expanding GE varieties beyond pest-control.
Impact of genetic modification in agriculture GE cultivars in production have already had a substantial impact. Most of the commercial applications of GE thus far are in pest- and weed-control, and it has been adopted primarily by a few large countries. In particular, there is large-scale adoption of GE corn, soybean, and cotton in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina, and of GE cotton in China and India (Bennett et al., 2013). For example, the proportion of US maize with at least one Bacillus thuringiensis gene expressing an insecticidal protein (Bt) has risen from 2% in 1996 to 76% in 2013, while the amount carrying at least one transgenic herbicide tolerance (HT) gene has risen from 2% to 85% over the same period (USDA-ERS, 2013). A recent analysis of 164 000 trials showed that GE caused a statistically significant increase in yield over this period, accounting for 29–33% of the total increase over the past decade (Nolan & Santos, 2012). Moreover, 90% of the soybean in Argentina and more than 90% of the cotton in India is genetically modified. In spite of the limited number of adopting countries, hundreds of millions of acres have been utilized for GE crops and they have had a significant impact on productivity. They increase yields, especially in developing countries (Qaim, 2009). They also increase the estimated average supply of corn by 10%, cotton by 20%, and soybean by 501
502 D . Z I L B E R M A N 30% while decreasing these crops’ agricultural footprint (Barrows et al., 2014b). Without GE, it is estimated that soybean prices would be 33% higher, corn 13%, and cotton 30% than they are today (Barrows et al., 2014a). Generally, the main beneficiaries from the lower prices are the poor, who spend a higher share of their income on food. Low-income individuals throughout the world are consuming pork and poultry that depend on availability of corn and soybean (Kearney, 2010). The political instability associated with higher food prices observed in 2008 would have been greater without the availability of the current generation of GE crops. Furthermore, the introduction of pest-control traits has been associated with the replacement of toxic pesticides that saved many lives in developing countries (Qaim, 2009) and improved the livelihoods, sometimes doubling incomes, of subsistence farmers who adopted GE cotton (Subramanian & Qaim, 2010). There is no compelling evidence that GE foods are in any way inferior to conventional or organic food, and its economic and social benefits are quite apparent. In fact the opposite may even be true; Bt in corn results in a lower incidence of aflatoxin production (Wu, 2006). The potential of GE in addressing the challenges of climate change is substantial and multidimensional. The contribution of GE to mitigation includes reducing the footprint of agricultural land through increases in productivity. The introduction of herbicide tolerant varieties enabled double cropping of soybean with wheat in Argentina, which was responsible for much of the increase in production of soybean (Trigo & Cap, 2003). In addition to land use reduction, the adoption of herbicide tolerant varieties enabled the use of no- or low-tillage technology that actually sequestered carbon. Barrows et al. (2014b) estimate that the minimum savings in GHG emissions due to land use reduction because of GE was equivalent to 1/8 of the annual greenhouse gas emissions produced by cars in the United States. If GE varieties were adopted in corn and soybean in the rest of the world, the yield effect, especially in Africa, would have been significant. This has already been seen in South Africa, and the reduction in the acreage needed to feed growing populations would have been even more significant. If GE was applied in the improvement of rice, wheat, and other crops, then land and other inputs such as water and fertilizers needed to produce a given level of food would have declined much further. Improved productivity through reduced pest and disease damage in agriculture would also have reduced the requirements for irrigation, fertilizer, and other inputs associated with land use. Current GE traits are only the beginning. There are many other traits that are being experimented with in the field or in the lab. Their introduction may increase
the digestibility of feeds like soybean, which will reduce the agricultural footprint even further, improve productivity during droughts, and increase the shelf life of products. Biotechnology enhances the efficiency of agricultural inputs, and doing more with less is the basic idea of climate change mitigation.
Adaptation The most recent IPCC report on agriculture has overlooked the current and potential contribution of GE to climate change mitigation, perhaps in deference to policy and public perception. But, policies and perceptions can and should be changed with new knowledge and information. And just as reporting the science of climate change is unpopular with some public perception, the authors of IPCC should not have ducked reporting on the huge potential of GE in providing at least one more wedge to combat direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Genetic modification can play an especially important role as part of adaptation strategies (Zilberman et al., 2012). A major implication of climate change is temperature change, which will likely be significant and wreak havoc on agricultural systems. Warmer temperatures in some places can increase productivity, but in others may reduce it. The genomics revolution has revealed many potential opportunities for mitigation and adaptation through GE. However, it will take at least 20 years to move from the laboratory to new cultivars that can be released to farm fields. Therefore, action must be taken now if we are to ensure our future food supply and avoid increased land conversion, which will be the inevitable short-term consequence of a failure to meet global food and feed demand.
Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Giannini Foundation and the Energy Biosciences Institute. I thank Steve Long for his insightful suggestions.
References Barrows G, Sexton S, Zilberman D (2014a) Agricultural biotechnology: the promise and prospects of genetically modified crops. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28, 99–120. Barrows G, Sexton S, Zilberman D (2014b) The impact of agricultural biotechnology on supply and land use. Environment and Development Economics, 1–28. Bennett AB, Chi-Ham C, Barrows G, Sexton S, Zilberman D (2013) Agricultural biotechnology: economics, environment, ethics, and the future. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38, 249–279. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) ‘Agriculture, forestry, and other land use.’ Chapter 11 in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ (accessed 15 August 2014). Kearney J (2010) Food consumption trends and drivers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 2793–2807.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 21, 501–503
A G - B I O T E C H T O C O M B A T C L I M A T E C H A N G E 503 Nolan E, Santos P (2012) The contribution of genetic modification to changes in corn yield in the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94, 1171–1188.
USDA-ERS (2013) Economic Research Service - Data Products. United States Department of Agriculture ERS, Washington D.C., USA. Available at: http://www.ers.
Qaim M (2009) The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 665–694. Subramanian A, Qaim M (2010) The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India. The Journal of Development Studies, 46, 295–311. Trigo EJ, Cap EJ (2003) The impact of the introduction of transgenic crops in Argentinean agriculture. AgBioForum, 6, 87–94.
usda.gov/data-products.aspx#.Uoqkl-KJ7yA (accessed 15 August 2014). Wu F (2006) Mycotoxin reduction in Bt corn: potential economic, health, and regulatory impacts. Transgenic Research, 15, 277–289. Zilberman D, Zhao J, Heiman A (2012) Adoption versus adaptation, with emphasis on climate change. Annual Review Resource of Economics, 4, 27–53.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 21, 501–503
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.
LETTER
IPCC AR5 overlooked the potential of unleashing agricultural biotechnology to combat climate change and poverty DAVID ZILBERMAN Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
The role that agricultural biotechnology can play in the mitigation of climate change has been ignored in the new IPCC report (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014). This is unfortunate in light of results seen in a growing body of literature, which show that genetic engineering (GE) has already contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and indicate that it can play a large role in both the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, especially under less-restrictive regulations. Conversion of noncropland to cropland is a major contributor to the greenhouse gas increase in the atmosphere. An important way to decrease pressure for land conversion is to increase productivity on land currently used for food and feed crop production. Here, GE has proven benefits and huge untapped potential. This editorial argues that GE provides powerful tools to meet the challenges of climate change and, at the same time, address problems of poverty. Unfortunately, some of the nations that express the greatest concern about climate change are also establishing regulations and a political environment that inhibits the utilization and growth of GE.
Background on genetic modification in agriculture Genetic modification of crops became possible with the discovery of DNA and the genetic code. This discovery led to critical innovations that established the field of medical biotechnology. Today, many widely used medicines are produced with GE technologies, including almost all insulin. Since the 1990s, agricultural sciences have been able to genetically modify crops by inserting traits, and this capacity has led to several major applications that have resulted in proven increases in the productivity of and benefits from major crops (Barrows et al., 2014a). It is useful to distinguish between three generations of GE cultivars. First-generation GE consists of mostly production traits, which includes insect and disease Correspondence: David Zilberman, tel. 510 290 9515, fax 510 643 8911, e-mail: [email protected]
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
resistance or herbicide tolerance. The second-generation traits include enhanced quality and composition, tolerance to abiotic stress, enhancement of nutritional properties, and photosynthetic efficiency. Third-generation includes the production of industrial fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals in plants. First-generation traits account for most commercial GE cultivars, with 75% of traits that are in the premarket stage. DroughtgardTM is the first abiotic stress (second generation) trait to come into limited commercial use, and secondand third-generation traits account for 25% and 75% of the traits in the premarket stage and field trial stages, respectively. So even with severe regulatory constraints, there is hope of expanding GE varieties beyond pest-control.
Impact of genetic modification in agriculture GE cultivars in production have already had a substantial impact. Most of the commercial applications of GE thus far are in pest- and weed-control, and it has been adopted primarily by a few large countries. In particular, there is large-scale adoption of GE corn, soybean, and cotton in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina, and of GE cotton in China and India (Bennett et al., 2013). For example, the proportion of US maize with at least one Bacillus thuringiensis gene expressing an insecticidal protein (Bt) has risen from 2% in 1996 to 76% in 2013, while the amount carrying at least one transgenic herbicide tolerance (HT) gene has risen from 2% to 85% over the same period (USDA-ERS, 2013). A recent analysis of 164 000 trials showed that GE caused a statistically significant increase in yield over this period, accounting for 29–33% of the total increase over the past decade (Nolan & Santos, 2012). Moreover, 90% of the soybean in Argentina and more than 90% of the cotton in India is genetically modified. In spite of the limited number of adopting countries, hundreds of millions of acres have been utilized for GE crops and they have had a significant impact on productivity. They increase yields, especially in developing countries (Qaim, 2009). They also increase the estimated average supply of corn by 10%, cotton by 20%, and soybean by 501
502 D . Z I L B E R M A N 30% while decreasing these crops’ agricultural footprint (Barrows et al., 2014b). Without GE, it is estimated that soybean prices would be 33% higher, corn 13%, and cotton 30% than they are today (Barrows et al., 2014a). Generally, the main beneficiaries from the lower prices are the poor, who spend a higher share of their income on food. Low-income individuals throughout the world are consuming pork and poultry that depend on availability of corn and soybean (Kearney, 2010). The political instability associated with higher food prices observed in 2008 would have been greater without the availability of the current generation of GE crops. Furthermore, the introduction of pest-control traits has been associated with the replacement of toxic pesticides that saved many lives in developing countries (Qaim, 2009) and improved the livelihoods, sometimes doubling incomes, of subsistence farmers who adopted GE cotton (Subramanian & Qaim, 2010). There is no compelling evidence that GE foods are in any way inferior to conventional or organic food, and its economic and social benefits are quite apparent. In fact the opposite may even be true; Bt in corn results in a lower incidence of aflatoxin production (Wu, 2006). The potential of GE in addressing the challenges of climate change is substantial and multidimensional. The contribution of GE to mitigation includes reducing the footprint of agricultural land through increases in productivity. The introduction of herbicide tolerant varieties enabled double cropping of soybean with wheat in Argentina, which was responsible for much of the increase in production of soybean (Trigo & Cap, 2003). In addition to land use reduction, the adoption of herbicide tolerant varieties enabled the use of no- or low-tillage technology that actually sequestered carbon. Barrows et al. (2014b) estimate that the minimum savings in GHG emissions due to land use reduction because of GE was equivalent to 1/8 of the annual greenhouse gas emissions produced by cars in the United States. If GE varieties were adopted in corn and soybean in the rest of the world, the yield effect, especially in Africa, would have been significant. This has already been seen in South Africa, and the reduction in the acreage needed to feed growing populations would have been even more significant. If GE was applied in the improvement of rice, wheat, and other crops, then land and other inputs such as water and fertilizers needed to produce a given level of food would have declined much further. Improved productivity through reduced pest and disease damage in agriculture would also have reduced the requirements for irrigation, fertilizer, and other inputs associated with land use. Current GE traits are only the beginning. There are many other traits that are being experimented with in the field or in the lab. Their introduction may increase
the digestibility of feeds like soybean, which will reduce the agricultural footprint even further, improve productivity during droughts, and increase the shelf life of products. Biotechnology enhances the efficiency of agricultural inputs, and doing more with less is the basic idea of climate change mitigation.
Adaptation The most recent IPCC report on agriculture has overlooked the current and potential contribution of GE to climate change mitigation, perhaps in deference to policy and public perception. But, policies and perceptions can and should be changed with new knowledge and information. And just as reporting the science of climate change is unpopular with some public perception, the authors of IPCC should not have ducked reporting on the huge potential of GE in providing at least one more wedge to combat direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Genetic modification can play an especially important role as part of adaptation strategies (Zilberman et al., 2012). A major implication of climate change is temperature change, which will likely be significant and wreak havoc on agricultural systems. Warmer temperatures in some places can increase productivity, but in others may reduce it. The genomics revolution has revealed many potential opportunities for mitigation and adaptation through GE. However, it will take at least 20 years to move from the laboratory to new cultivars that can be released to farm fields. Therefore, action must be taken now if we are to ensure our future food supply and avoid increased land conversion, which will be the inevitable short-term consequence of a failure to meet global food and feed demand.
Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Giannini Foundation and the Energy Biosciences Institute. I thank Steve Long for his insightful suggestions.
References Barrows G, Sexton S, Zilberman D (2014a) Agricultural biotechnology: the promise and prospects of genetically modified crops. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28, 99–120. Barrows G, Sexton S, Zilberman D (2014b) The impact of agricultural biotechnology on supply and land use. Environment and Development Economics, 1–28. Bennett AB, Chi-Ham C, Barrows G, Sexton S, Zilberman D (2013) Agricultural biotechnology: economics, environment, ethics, and the future. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38, 249–279. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) ‘Agriculture, forestry, and other land use.’ Chapter 11 in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ (accessed 15 August 2014). Kearney J (2010) Food consumption trends and drivers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 2793–2807.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 21, 501–503
A G - B I O T E C H T O C O M B A T C L I M A T E C H A N G E 503 Nolan E, Santos P (2012) The contribution of genetic modification to changes in corn yield in the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94, 1171–1188.
USDA-ERS (2013) Economic Research Service - Data Products. United States Department of Agriculture ERS, Washington D.C., USA. Available at: http://www.ers.
Qaim M (2009) The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 665–694. Subramanian A, Qaim M (2010) The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India. The Journal of Development Studies, 46, 295–311. Trigo EJ, Cap EJ (2003) The impact of the introduction of transgenic crops in Argentinean agriculture. AgBioForum, 6, 87–94.
usda.gov/data-products.aspx#.Uoqkl-KJ7yA (accessed 15 August 2014). Wu F (2006) Mycotoxin reduction in Bt corn: potential economic, health, and regulatory impacts. Transgenic Research, 15, 277–289. Zilberman D, Zhao J, Heiman A (2012) Adoption versus adaptation, with emphasis on climate change. Annual Review Resource of Economics, 4, 27–53.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 21, 501–503
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.
