HCRES 2017

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

ENGINEERING OUR FOOD

A DISCUSSION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

Letter from the Editor Devin Clark

4

Genetically Modified Organisms in the Food System Ruth MacDonald

8

The Reality (and Illusion) of GMO Opposition Katherine Tutrone

10

Genetically Modified Organisms: From a Breeder’s Context P. Stephen Baenziger

12

Genetic Technologies and the Transformation of Agricultural Production David Hennessy

17

Nurturing the World: Crossing Agriculture with Nutrition Calestous Juma

19

Necessary Regulatory Changes to Improve the Federal Government’s Oversight of Genetically Engineered Crops Gregory Jaffe

22

Genetically Modified Organisms between the International Legal Systems for Regulating Biological Diversity and Trade Sam Halabi

25

Can Genetically Engineered Crops Solve Problems?

Joanna Sax

28

High-tech Agriculture or Agroecology for Tomorrow’s Agriculture?

Sylvie Bonny

31

References and Photo Credits

2 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR The fourth issue of the Harvard College Review of Environment and Society seeks to elucidate the debate around genetically engineered crop production.

This technology has the ability to revolutionize the way societies around the world produce their food, and from the Golden Rice protests that happened in the Philippines in 2013, to the U.S. legal battles that are still settling intellectual property and jurisdictional disputes, it is clear that society has not caught up to technological developments.

We begin with an article from Professor Ruth MacDonald to introduce the history and scientific consensus behind genetically modified organisms so that the reader can proceed with an overview of how genetically modified organisms interact with the food system.

Towards the conclusion of the Review, Professor Joanna Sax and Sylvie Bonny question the role of genetically engineered crops in the future.

By bringing together these voices, we hope to provide the reader with a greater appreciation for the complexity of the societal issues around genetically engineered crops, and how this technology can influence the natural systems around us.

Happy reading,

Devin Clark Editor-in-Chief Harvard College Review of Environment and Society

Professor P. Stephen Baenziger and Professor David Hennessy then explain the process of developing genetically modified foods and the economics behind growing them, respectively. Meanwhile, Professor Calestous Juma outlines the potential for GMOs to solve nutritional deficiencies in developing nations, and Gregory Jaffe outlines current regulatory barriers to federal oversight of genetically engineered crops in the United States, and Professor Sam Halabi turns our attention to international trade.

MASTHEAD

ABOUT THE REVIEW A publication at Harvard that seeks to provide a platform for connecting students, researchers, business and political leaders, and the public to enable integrative discussion that is paramount to developing successful solutions to our current environmental issues.

While much of the contemporary discourse on environment and society have been focused on either one or the other, this publication provides a robust multidisciplinary discussion on the full gamut of competing pressures and interests relating to the environment.

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 3

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS IN THE FOOD SYSTEM Ruth MacDonald Dr. Ruth MacDonald is a Professor and Chair of Food Science and Human Nutrition, and Assistant Dean for Graduate Programs at Iowa State University. She holds a PhD in Nutritional Sciences with a minor in Food Science from the University of Minnesota and is a Registered Dietitian.

G

enetically modified (GM) food has been part of the U.S. food system for over 20 years, there have been no documented health concerns associated with these foods, and the majority of the scientific community supports the safety of this technology. Yet consumer distrust of GM foods is widespread. GM technology arose in the early 1980s when scientists developed the ability to selectively insert a defined sequence of DNA obtained from one organism (a bacterium) into a different organism (a plant) such that the encoded protein was expressed by the plant (Gasser and Fraley, 1989). Simultaneously, the field of molecular biology was rapidly advancing with tools to map genomes, select and insert gene sequences, and 4 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

regulate their expression. Genetic modification technology was ideally suited to address ways to control pests, including weeds, insects and diseases in agricultural crops. However, the first commercialized genetically modified (GM) plant was the Flavr-Savr tomato introduced to the consumer market in 1994 (Bruening and Lyons, 2000). The Flavr-Savr tomato, created by Calgene Inc., contained an antisense copy of the gene that expressed a fruit enzyme, polygalacturonase, which causes breakdown of cellwall pectin leading to decay. GM tomatoes could be ripened on the vine, then transported to the market because they were resistant to decomposition, thereby giving them better flavor and texture. Initially, FlavrSavr tomatoes, which were clearly labeled as containing an engineered trait, were very popular with consumers and sold well. However, production costs were high, leading to reduced profitability. The Zeneca Company licensed the tomato to be sold as tomato paste in the United Kingdom in 1996, again clearly labeled as GM. Sales of the product were strong until 1998 when there was a sudden decline in

sales and change in consumer acceptance of the GM tomato paste. A U.K. House of Commons report suggested that the change occurred following a British broadcast in which a scientist from the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland was interviewed on a popular radio show. In the interview, the scientist reported on a study he had conducted from which he

traits that allowed plants to be resistant to herbicides, such as glyphosate (commercially known as RoundUp ), or to express a pesticide, such as Bacillus thuringienesis toxin (Bt). Farmers immediately saw the benefits of these products and quickly adopted them.

By 2013, about half of the total cropland in the U.S. was planted with GM crops, mainly corn, soybeans, ®

“The FDA, USDA and EPA are tasked with overseeing GM technology in the food supply and have, since 1992, found the technology to be safe for human food applications.” concluded rats fed GM potatoes showed growth stunting and increased vulnerability to disease (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999). The story was picked up and widely disseminated by major British newspapers, leading to public outcry about the safety of GM foods. This led the House of Commons to conduct a thorough investigation of the research that had been reported in the media. The investigation concluded that the researcher had made inaccurate statements about his work and there was no evidence a genetic trait caused growth stunting nor negative effects on the immune system (UK Parliamentary Business, 1999). This incident may have been the start of the public distrust of GM foods in Europe and certainly aided the anti-GM movement. The U.K. has approved only one type of GM corn since 1998 and public sentiment remains strongly opposed to the technology, even though scientists in the EU continually report on the safety and benefits of GM technology (European Commission, 2010). Some changes in the acceptance of GM crops may be occurring with the 2015 legislative action by the European Parliament that gives member states more flexibility to use the technology.

The Monsanto Company in 1996 commercially introduced GM crops to the U.S. with

sugar beets and cotton (Fernandez-Cornejo, et al, 2014). Herbicide resistant GM crops can be sprayed with the herbicide early in their growth phase, giving them advantage over weeds. This allows farmers to use less herbicide over the course of the growing season. Some types of GM crops are amenable to notill practices that reduce the environmental impact caused by plowing fields (less greenhouse gas released from the soil, less erosion, and less use of fossil fuels by farm equipment). Bt crops produce a toxin that kills corn borers as they chew on the plant roots. This trait eliminates the need to spray crops with a pesticide and kills the pests even before damage is evident. An irony is that the Bt toxin is approved for use in organic production, but Bt crops (containing the same protein) are not. Since 1996, many other types of genetically modified crops have been introduced and plants with stacked traits (more than one modification) are widely used. However, glyphosate resistant and Bt crops remain the dominant traits in the primary row crops grown in the U.S. The FDA, USDA and EPA are tasked with overseeing GM technology in the food supply and have, since 1992, found the technology to be safe for human food applications. In contrast, organizations HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 5

including Greenpeace, Millions Against Monsanto, Right to Know, GMO Free, and Food and Water Watch have been engaged in efforts to disparage GM technology. During the 1990s, the British environmental activist Mark Lynas was a leader in the anti-GM movement. Lynas participated in destroying GM crop field trials across Europe and attacking Monsanto and other companies for their role in producing these crops because he believed they were dangerous and unsafe. Lynas has however, completely changed his view on GM crops based on his realization of the scientific evidence for their safety and potential benefit to the environment (www.marklynas.org). Another converted activist is Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace. Moore has created the Allow Golden Rice Now! Organization to promote the acceptance of GM rice containing beta-carotene by developing countries (www.allowgoldenricenow.org). He contends that withholding this crop from people suffering from vitamin A deficiency is unethical and inhumane, leading to needless suffering and death.

Also supporting that opinion, 100 Nobel laureates signed a letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to GM foods and “…call on governments of the world to reject Greenpeace’s campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general…” (http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobellaureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html).

There are likely many reasons why consumers remain unsure of the safety and purpose of GM foods. Only about 2% of the U.S. population is directly associated with agriculture and most Americans have never been to a farm. This leads to a general lack of experience with food production. A survey conducted by the National Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (2011) found that 72% of consumers knew nothing or very little about farming or ranching, yet 70% said their purchasing decisions were affected by how food is grown and raised.

Consumer perspectives about food may have undergone a change following the introduction of the National Organic Program (NOP) by the USDA in 1990. The introduction of a certification program for organically produced food, backed by a USDAapproved label, may have created a hierarchy for food in consumers’ minds. Consumers believe organic foods are safer, fresher and more healthful than conventionally grown foods (Zhao et al., 2007). While 6 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

there are some differences in organic compared to conventionally grown foods, the scientific evidence supports that conventionally grown foods are safe and nutritious (Bourn and Prescott, 2002; Hoefkens et al, 2010), and do not pose a risk from pesticide residues (Winter, 2015). Yet consumers continue to perceive a benefit for organic foods, even though they may cost 2 or 3 times as much as conventional products. In 2000, organic sales were about $6 billion rising to over $35 billion in 2014 (USDA-Economic Research Service data; www.ers.usda.gov). By law, organic foods may not be GM, hence consumers may believe that any food not labeled as organic is GM. The reality is that almost none of the produce in the grocery store is GM. A little known fact is that during the discussion as to what would be included in the NOP standards, GM technology was strongly considered for inclusion. The argument for allowing GM under the NOP standard was that GM crops would require less chemicals and be protective of the environment. In the end however, GM technology was excluded. Had that decision gone the other way, perhaps we would have a very different situation today in our food system!

“72% of consumers knew nothing or very little about farming or ranching, yet 70% said their purchasing decisions were affected by how food is grown and raised.”

Another reason consumers may oppose GM foods is the disconnect between the application of the

Integrity, 2016). This is evident in the finding that 88% of scientists view GM as safe while only 37% of adult consumers believe GM is safe (Pew Research Center survey, 2015). The safety of GM (or genetically engineered, GE) foods was recently reconfirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report (2016) that concluded “…the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.” Major organizations such as the American Medical Association, Royal Society of Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, Center for Science in the Public Interest, World Health Organization and European Commission have come to the same conclusion that GM foods are safe. Despite the

technology and what consumers care about. The primary GM crops are corn, sugar beets and soybeans – used mainly for animal feed and food ingredients.

Further, GM crops have herbicide-tolerant or pestresistant traits – neither have any direct benefit to human health or well-being. The potential for health benefits are clearly within the scope of GM technology. The recent approval of the genetically modified AquaAdvantage salmon, that grows twice as fast as non-GM salmon, will increase access to a healthy source of protein and omega-3 fatty acids.

The non-browning Artic apple will make this nutritious food more convenient and reduce food waste. Other foods with traits that have potential health benefit are on the horizon, including potatoes ®

®

“Another reason consumers may oppose GM foods is the disconnect between the application of the technology and what consumers care about. The primary GM crops are corn, sugar beets and soybeans – used mainly for animal feed and food ingredients.” weight of scientific evidence, however, consumers remain skeptical.

that do not produce acrylamide (a carcinogen) when cooked, soybeans with beneficial lipid profiles, corn with more fiber, and fruits and vegetables that resist spoilage (USDA Animal and Health Inspection Service). Until the benefits of GM foods to consumers are greater than any perceived risk, acceptance will be challenging to attain.

The rapid advances in technology in all aspects of our lives may be behind the desire to keep food simple, basic and uncomplicated. The current demand for ‘clean labels’ without additives and artificial colors, and unprocessed foods is indicative of that desire. Concurrently, we are facing unprecedented demands on our food supply to meet the needs of a growing population, changing global demographics, and the impacts of climate change.

GM technology has the potential to make food more safe, nutritious and palatable, to increase production, and reduce waste. Ensuring biotechnology is applied safely with proper oversight is of course essential, but suppressing these powerful and important tools is foolhardy and counterproductive.

The dramatic increase in access to information through social media and the internet has likely aided the promotion of anti-GM concerns among U.S. consumers. Misinformation spreads through social media rapidly and is reinforced by following popular blogs and websites. Surveys have found that consumers are more likely to trust information from peers or those that share their lifestyle and ideals than from scientists, the government or corporations (Center for Food

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 7

Katherine Tutrone

THE REALITY (& ILLUSION) OF GMO OPPOSITION

7 is a Harvard graduate with a Katherine Tutrone B.A. ’18 Bachelor’s degree in Psychology.

Do we really oppose GMOs or is it all a mind game? espite the prevalence of research revealing the harmlessness of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), individuals continue to oppose the use of GMOs in food. Substances containing GMOs are often considered “unsafe” or “wrong,” yet there exists little evidence to support those claims. A recent National Academy of Sciences report in December concluded that there exists no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks between GMO crops and conventionally bred crops.

So how do these immutable judgments form in the first place?

D

Public opposition to GMOs may shed light on how deeper psychological mechanisms influence scientific judgment. A paper in the journal Trends in Plant Science (2015) describes how various cognitive biases could explain the discrepancy between 8 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

scientific evidence and persistent public opposition.

Researchers attempt to explain why such an opposition might exist in spite of evidence revealing the advantages of GMOs. It comes down to the psychological mechanisms that drive intuitive judgments, which prevail against scientific fact. The authors allude to an “intuitive appeal of GMO opposition” (Blanke et al, 2015). In such a sense, the paper discusses how a reliance on intuitive reasoning encourages negative evaluations of GMOs. But why do these biases take over?

Both scientists and philosophers suggest how various psychological preferences can enable a selective perception of information related to GMOs. Recent research alludes to one bias in particular: a human preference for the “natural”.

This implicit preference might explain the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Understanding a preference for the “natural” begins by recognizing how individuals decipher what is “natural” versus

“unnatural.” A British study assessing both American and European attitudes concluded that the natural refers to an absence of negative features (i.e. additives, human intervention), as opposed to the presence of positive features (i.e. organic, biological).

Thus, any product or organism exhibiting these negative features, such as genetically modified food, is regarded as unnatural and possibly harmful (Rozin, Fischler, & Shields-Argeles, 2012). According to psychologist Robert Sternberg (1982), the natural depicts a level of familiarity, while the unnatural remains novel and unfamiliar. Thus, the unnatural requires more cognitive effort for people to understand. As a result, the unnatural is inherently negative. The results of a study about the effects of different forms of agricultural intensification exhibited how individuals concentrate on the negative aspects of genetic modification, even when scientific conclusions suggest the unnatural can be beneficial.

The study compared the environmental effects of non-modified cotton and transgenic (genetically modified) cotton. Conclusions emphasized how both types of cotton had negative effects on arthropod populations. In particular, researchers reported that the genetically modified cotton had a higher end yield per each unit of pesticide use. Individuals still preferred the non-modified cotton, looking past the comparative advantages of the genetically modified cotton (Cattaneo et al., 2006).

As the nature of genetic modification remains unfamiliar and complex, public opposition persists. It is difficult to form a rational perspective on such an unclear subject. Previous research even reveals how little people know about GMOs. According to a Thomson Reuters Healthcare Survey of 3,000 people, only a quarter of respondents claimed to fully understand genetically engineered food. Without enough knowledge of GMO data to make rational judgments, intuitive feelings take over.

Recent studies have explored the power of emotion when evaluating unfamiliar, novel data. In the case of GMO research and public perceptions, scientific data supporting GMOs is downplayed by emotions (Finucane et al., 2000). This is where the preference for the natural motivates opposition.

Feelings of disgust and concern regarding the unnatural inform negative opinions on GMOs. This consequently interferes with one’s ability to rationally judge any proceeding scientific data related to GMOs. Scientific conclusions demonstrating the

advantages or relative harmlessness of GMOs might be perceived in opposing ways that do not contradict any initial opinions.

With a wide range of perspectives and scientific conclusions reported across media platforms, individuals tend to perceive information in ways that do not challenge their own internal beliefs. This makes the processing of novel or complex information relatively easy for the individual. Deeper cognitive biases motivate these perceptions and implicitly tap into how audiences filter information related to the complex topic of GMOs. With the pervasive intuitive appeal of GMO opposition, individuals make the cognitive commitment to understanding information exclusively in terms of the danger of GMOs. Once a commitment to a particular opinion has been made, it is difficult for future information to shift that opinion. Blancke et al.

(2015) describe how this commitment explains why individuals judge any negative representations of GMOs as compelling and concrete, while remaining oblivious to, or disqualifying research that alludes to the harmlessness of GMOs (Blancke et al, 2015) A mindful approach to opposing science It is important to recognize the influence of heuristic biases when evaluating scientific research. Any research conclusions should be approached with a level of skepticism. Maintaining an open mind might allow individuals to evaluate and conceptualize data altogether.

The dissonance between existing factual data and public opinion opens up conversation surrounding the relationship between many different academic disciplines including biology, psychology, and philosophy. As science comes to clash with individual worldviews, there exists a need to remain skeptical of GMO discussions and to maintain an awareness of why some information seems more compelling than others. A general practice of mindfulness in approaching GMO issues might allow conversation to draw from scientific research, rather than from intuitive feelings influenced by implicit biases. Exploring the psychology behind GMOs suggests a need to understand the role of psychological tendencies in the perception of scientific information. Cognitive processes, such as a preference for the “natural,” only provide insight into how discussions surrounding GMOs and other scientific issues may have taken shape in the way they do.

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 9

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS:

FROM A BREEDER'S CONTEXT P. S. Baenziger

Dr. P. S. Baenziger has been the small grains (winter wheat, barley, and triticale) breeder for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for the past 31 years and has released 48 cultivars. Before that, he worked for the USDA-ARS (8 years) and Monsanto (3 years).

A

s a small grains (wheat, barley, and triticale) breeder, it must be understood that the purpose of all plant breeding is to genetically modify the crops that we breed. Useful genetic modification began with domestication where the weedy genes were replaced through mutations and with selection to become the domesticated crops that feed, clothe, shelter, and provide the bio-based products that fuel our future. For people unfamiliar with plant breeding, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has a much more limited definition, namely those organisms created by genetic engineering or the transfer of genes from one genus or species to the species of interest. Most breeders describe these plants as “transgenic� to separate them from the genetically modified crops created by traditional breeding processes. The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with an understanding of how many of us who breed new cultivars consider transgenic crops and to put this technology into the perspective of how a modern breeding program might use this technology. To a plant breeder and hopefully for the general public, the need for plant breeding and advanced technologies are clear when you consider the challenges facing humanity (Flavell, 2016). In addition, the public safety of transgenic crops has been recently reviewed in great detail (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016) so it will not be discussed here.

In plant breeding, there are four steps: 1.

Define your breeding objective (what you want to improve), 2. Identify and incorporate sources of genetic variation for your breeding target, 3. Allow the incorporated variation to separate (usually by 10 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

inbreeding if you are working with self-pollinated crops [e.g. small grains] or hybrid crops made from inbreds [e.g. corn or sorghum]) and select for useful variants within your population, and 4. Evaluate your selections in diverse growing regions to determine if the line, population, or hybrid is superior to those already available to the growers or consumers (Baenziger and DePauw, 2009). If the line, population, or hybrid is superior for at least one important trait, then the line should be released to growers and consumer, and can be widely grown.

Normally, crop yield is the most important trait that is considered, but other traits such as disease or pest resistance, end-use quality, and flavor are also extremely important.

Defining the breeding objective is a critical first step, because there may be alternative crop management approaches that are more cost-effective or practical than using breeding to meet that objective. For example, when there are a myriad of seedling diseases and insects that attack crop plants, using a relatively inexpensive broad spectrum fungicidal and insecticidal seed treatment may be preferred. Seed treatments also have the advantage that they can be used on every cultivar (as opposed to breeding every cultivar for resistance). Only in situations where synthetic chemical seed treatments are not allowed (e.g. in organic farming), uneconomical (subsistence farming), or not available (have not been invented), will breeding for the most important seedling diseases or insects be considered.

The second step is incorporating genetic variation, and this is where transgenes (the genes transferred using genetic engineering) fit into the breeding process. Traditionally, breeders are able to use the genetic variation within species through sexual hybridization. Using various additional techniques, they are often able to incorporate genes from related species and genera. In addition, induced mutations

can be used to increase genetic variation. These genetic resources become the available gene pool (source of genes) for crop improvement. As extensive as the gene pool is for most crops, there are some traits or characteristics in crop plants for which breeders have reached the upper (or lower) genetic limit of the genetic resources in the crop (Baenziger and DePauw, 2009).

For example, the cultivar Kharkof, introduced into the U.S. in the early 1900s, is still the most winter-hardy wheat cultivar and little improvement has been made since its introduction. There are other useful traits for which there were no or economically insufficient genetic variation. Examples of these traits are herbicide resistance (e.g. glyphosate tolerance), insect resistance (e.g. Bt), or vitamin enhancement (e.g. golden rice; Ye et al., 2000). In these cases, the breeder has two choices: 1. To abandon the breeding objective, or 2. To look beyond the traditional breeding gene pool to find sources of variation. If the breeding objective is important, no breeder wants to abandon it. Hence transgenic approaches are considered.

Once a transgene is introduced into a crop plant, the next steps are to ensure that the new gene is stably inherited and expressed in the correct plant tissues. The gene will be inherited like any other gene in the plant, and breeding will continue as if it were a gene from the native plant gene pool. Essentially, DNA is DNA and once this transgene is successfully incorporated, it can be used in conventional plant breeding.

Stable expression, however, is important, because the customer wants a consistent product. If the transgene is not stably inherited or expressed, the cultivar is not a consistent, reliable product and will not be marketed. This ability to transfer the transgene as a breeder would do for any native gene is extremely important because each new transgene insertion (e.g. the same transgene inserted into the genome) starts the costly and time consuming regulatory approval process over again. For this reason, of all the insertions of a transgene, only one insertion is chosen to go through the regulatory process. The regulatory approval process also explains why once a successful transgene has been incorporated into a crop, it is bred into new cultivars and not reintroduced through genetic transformation. Similarly, whenever possible, plant breeders prefer to use non-transgenic methods to

produce new cultivars. The reason is simple. The regulations, again, require additional time and great expense, so it is always more economical to use traditional germplasm and breeding methods. Transgenes and transgenic crops should be viewed as the last (not the first) resort for finding genetic variation. That transgenic crops are widely grown is a testament that genetic variation did not exist in the crop gene pool and the breeding objective was extremely important (see http://www.isaaa.org/).

There are two great advantages to using transgenes in plant breeding. The first is in what is known as gene pyramids where multiple genes are introduced into a crop to provide better resistance to an ever-changing pathogen or pest (Baenziger and DePauw, 2009; Flavell, 2016). By linking the multiple genes into a single continuous strand of DNA, the inheritance becomes much simpler for plant breeders (the genes are inherited as a single unit as opposed to multiple independent units). The second is in improving clonally (asexually) propagated crops where sexual hybridization may be impossible or when possible will introduce so much additional variation that the uniqueness of the cultivar will be lost. An example of the latter are fruit and nut trees where the generation times are long and the flavors and textures may be unique to the specific clone of that crop. It is much more efficacious to introduce a few critical genes than to introduce literally thousands of genes by hybridization and have to select back to a single genotype.

Looking forward, genetic variation will always be the key to developing new cultivars, and transgenes, along with the native genetic resources and mutations, will be extremely important for crop improvement. For some crops, consumer acceptance has prevented the use of transgenes. For example there are no commercially grown transgenic wheat, barley, or rice plants. In considering the benefits of golden rice, this should be considered a currently missed opportunity (Moghissi, Pei, and Liu, 2016). Hopefully it will change in the future. The new gene editing strategies (Cardi and Stewart, 2016; Zhu et al., 2016) may alleviate some of these important limitations on genetic variation, but transgenes and transgenic crops have been and will continue to be vital to plant breeding, agriculture and those lives it sustains.

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 11

Genetic Technologies and the

Transformation of Agricultural Production

David A. Hennessy Dr. David A. Hennessy is the Professor and Elton R. Smith Chair in Food and Agricultural Policy for Michigan State University.

T

he purpose of this article is to provide curious readers with an overview of how production agriculture has changed as a result of Genetic Engineering (GE) technologies. Although the article’s geographic focus is United States agriculture, the points made do translate to other locations and some comments will be made about other regions. The article will discuss distinctive features of property protection in these markets, and will develop on the production economics of these technologies.

Particular emphasis will be placed on how these technologies affect information and management skills, and on implications for the environment. We conclude with a discussion on regulation, international acceptance and related matters.

12 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

Intellectual Property Protection and Social Welfare If a new invention whose use does not harm others were to fall from the sky, then society’s welfare would be best served by making it freely available for all to use. However, most research efforts fail, and successful innovations generally emerge after incurring considerable costs. Many of the costs regard compliance with regulations designed to ensure that only technologies which pose low risks to humans and the environment come to market. Policy makers face a fundamental dilemma when incentivizing such innovation. Arguably the most effective way to do so is to offer the inventor a patent-supported monopoly, allowing the holder to extract high prices over the invention’s use for several years.

“Cost savings from the seed traits have been so substantial that premiums in the range of about $40 per acre can be commanded over conventional seed.”

But there is another important way through which innovators in seed markets have had intellectual property protection. The practice of modern commercial seed production took a major step forward in the 1920s and 1930s when maize and poultry products based on hybrid vigor were brought to market. Controlled inbreeding to improve genetic lines were found to have limited effect, where a hybrid cross often improved performance. Higher productivity does not necessarily secure higher profit.

The feature that ensured return on investment was the technological flaw of inconsistent and generally poor performance by seed/progeny from hybrids, so that purchasing farmers would prefer a repeat purchase over stored seed. Dramatic improvements resulted, where maize yield gains dominated those of other crops and about 50% of the gains may have been due to breeding (Duvick 2005).

If intellectual property is protected then the holder’s capacity to extract rent depends crucially on the value users place on the alternatives available.

Cost savings from the seed traits have been so substantial that premiums in the range of about $40 per acre can be commanded over conventional seed.

Much, but not all, of the premium commanded can be viewed as a benefit to society because resources devoted to crop inputs have been released for use in other socially productive ways. In addition, the patent holder will not capture all of the benefits. Growers who are particularly good at using the new technology will see their profits rise while consumers will gain from expanding availability of produce derived from freed up agricultural resources.

Intellectual property protection and input

interaction opportunities drove the commercialization of GE crops in the mid-1990s. Although GE seeds have been marketed for many species, the largest markets are maize, soybean and cotton seed. GE wheat seeds have not been marketed, due in part to concerns about consumer acceptance for products that are mostly consumed directly by humans. The cleverly used input interactions are of two forms. The first is an input complementarity. Monsanto produced and held patents on the active ingredient in the Roundup® weedkiller. Noting that some bacteria had developed resistance to the herbicide, Monsanto entered the seed business in order to transfer that resistance to crops. Glyphosate tolerant, or Roundup Ready®, seeds appeal to growers as they reduce costs by enabling farmers to replace complex multichemical weed control programs with a single spray.

Monsanto benefitted through charging a premium over conventional seeds and making additional Roundup® sales, while other herbicide product companies lost markets. The second input interaction involves direct substitution. The commercial motive for including the insecticidal Bt trait in maize and other crops is to increase seed demand among growers keen to substitute away from costly chemical alternatives and avoid worrying about managing for certain insect infestations.

Production Economics of GE Seeds The most direct effect of GE seed has been on pesticide use. Glyphosate tolerant seed increased glyphosate application but reduced the use of other herbicides while Bt maize decreased the use of insecticides applied to maize (Perry et al. 2016b).

However, as is often the case with a fundamentally distinct innovation, the indirect effects have been HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 13

large. Pest management can consume considerable farm labor and decision-making resources. Fields had to be regularly scouted for evidence of infestation problems. Many pest, once established, can persist indefinitely in a field. Furthermore, when a delay occurs in identifying a pest problem then yield and/or crop quality will decline. Through providing low-cost management fixes, GE seeds dramatically simplify pest management during busy times. Without the need for supplemental pesticide applications near planting, GE seeds allow growers to manage more land and better utilize costly machinery.

A recent trend in United States crop agriculture has been toward reduced cultivation in preparation for planting. In this approach, the land is not plowed and seedbed preparation is minimal. There are many reasons why farmers till their land where two important ones are to kill weeds and to break soil pans. But, in addition to labor, energy and capital depreciation, farmers and society face other costs from such tillage. Tilled land loses soil moisture and is

GE traits have substantially improved average yields in countries with limited access to pesticides (Qaim and Zilberman 2003). In the United States, Xu et al.

(2013) provide evidence that GE traits have increased maize yield. Xu et al. also suggest that the Glyphosate-tolerance trait has been associated with a slight drag on mean soybean yields in the United States.

By targeting damage control, GE crops have also reduced yield risk. Consider that in any given year pest infestations may or may not prove to be an issue.

When they do, then yield is likely to be lower than average. Better damage control that increases yield when it is low will likely decrease yield variance. Thus, yield variance is likely to decline as a result of a GE trait. Crop quality can also be affected in several ways.

For example, the Bt toxin protects against insects which cause physical damage to the crop. Aflatoxin is a fungal disease that can affect many plants, including maize. It is of particular concern because it is associated with liver cancer and other ailments among

“Thus, yield variance is likely to decline as a result of a GE trait. Crop quality can also be affected in several ways.” prone to soil erosion, while tillage adds somewhat to the soil compaction it seeks to ameliorate. Through reducing the need for mechanical cultivation, the advent of Glyphosate-tolerant crops accelerated the adoption of no-till production practices and so aided in soil conservation endeavors (Perry et al. 2016a).

A widely proffered view is that, since the main attraction of GE seed has been to reduce costs to the grower, yield effects are minimal. This is not the case.

While applied technologies to date have not increased potential yield (National Academies 2016), they have decreased the gap between potential and actual yield.

For example, there is much evidence to suggest that

14 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

fed animals and humans. Bt seeds provide protection because the fungus can enter a plant through insectcaused damage sites.

Information and Social Capital In many ways farming GE crops requires fewer state-contingent decisions. A crop resistant to a herbicide that kills a broad spectrum of weeds will almost certainly be sprayed, while a crop that includes an insect toxin needs little monitoring for the insect’s presence. Another result, where admittedly there is currently no firm evidence one way or the other (National Academies 2015, but see Chavas et al.

2014), may be that more effective pest management

alternatives have allowed growers to simplify rotations that were in part intended to disrupt pest persistence. In short, GE seed has reduced the need to collect and process certain types of agronomic information. When the extent of crop cultivation declines, and average operation size expands, then the number of farm operators declines. Many crop farmers rent large acreages on short-term contracts as they see little additional return to having deep-rooted understanding of the land they crop.

Wendell Berry (2005) asks what is lost when lands are managed with technologies not tailored to them.

What is gained is clear in that one-size-fits-all technologies provide scale economies to reduce costs in their manufacture and use. These are private gains and individuals have strong incentives to take them through technology adoption. Consumers also benefit through paying lower food prices. One result on the supply side is that operating units have expanded.

Ezra Taft Benson, a former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture in the 1950s is reputed to have told a group of farmers “Get big or get out,� (Berry 2005), reflecting a structural trend that has persisted unrelentingly in U.S. commodity agriculture for more than a century. Losses, at least to those who view them as such, are generally more diffuse in incidence.

This is a problem because those who benefit from an action to prevent these losses may pay little of that action’s cost. The losses can take the form of less biological diversity in prime cropping areas, and a greater disconnect between people and the land on which their food is grown. In addition, just as the advent of retail franchises eliminated some locally placed management decisions and shifted others to corporate headquarters, the stock of crop husbandry entrepreneurship in an area may have declined and taken with it vital resources that rural communities might draw upon when adapting to the future.

The Environment Implications of GE crops on the environment are many and are often not obvious. The most obvious short-run impacts are on pesticides. In the short-run, herbicide tolerant crops will see more of the tolerated herbicide applied, but fewer of other herbicides. In addition herbicides can be toxic to those applying the chemical, to those consuming any residues on food, and to wildlife. As the Bt trait removes the need for certain insecticides, in the short-run this trait should reduce the application of manufactured insecticides.

For both herbicides and insecticides, long-run effects will depend on how quickly selection pressure

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 15

generates pest resistance, which will in turn depend on how the crop is managed. One might view absence of pest resistance as a commons resource (Hardin 1968) where in our case the absence of property rights may lead to the over-exploitation through excess planting. Through outreach and regulations, seed companies, growers and the government have collaborated with the intent to slow the development of resistance. The endeavor to manage resistance has proven to be problematic for many reasons. One is that the biology of resistance development is both innately random and poorly understood. Another is that while each grower might like for others to, e.g., plant non-Bt seed, so as to reduce selection pressure on the pest population, given the actions of other growers it is not privately optimal for any grower to do that. An interesting feature regards the use of Bt toxin when directed against the European corn borer where this insect’s larva stage damages the crop. The egg-laying moth cannot distinguish between plants that are and are not toxic to its larvae so that farmers who sow Bt maize may perform a ‘halo effect’ service to other local maize growers by reducing the pest population. Thus growers may have a temporal freerider incentive to take advantage of others’ efforts to protect resistance and also a spatial free-rider incentive to take advantage of neighbors’ efforts to kill the crop-damaging larvae. Whether too much or too little Bt seed is planted for the collective good is not so obvious!

Regarding empirical evidence, Perry et al (2016b) have shown that the advent of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the United States increased the toxicityweighted level of applied herbicide, while for many years glyphosate-tolerant maize had little net impact on herbicide use. However, by 2017 weed resistance to glyphosate had developed to become a major concern in most of the United States so that farmers are once more applying a portfolio of herbicides. For Bt maize, Hutchison et al. (2010) have provided strong evidence that the halo effect exists so that growers who do not purchase Bt maize receive substantial benefits at no cost. By contrast with weed resistance to relevant herbicides, as of 2017 insect resistance to the Bt toxin has not yet reached the level where concerted effort to avoid resistance development is forlorn.

Other environmental effects are no easier to assess. For many years, controversy surrounded 16 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

whether the observed decline of monarch butterflies was due to Bt corn pollen drift onto the milkweed that monarchs need for food. After further research clarified that the extent of pollen drift was insufficient to have a material impact on the monarch population, concerns were raised that the milkweed population was in decline due to the growing use of glyphosate (Pleasants and Oberhauser 2013). A further matter is the environmental impacts of yield growth due to these technologies. Driven by renewable fuel standards legislation in 2005-2007, as of 2016 in excess of 30% of U.S. corn is used for ethanol production. Land resources are under stress throughout the world to deliver food, fuel and environmental outputs. Opportunities for per acre growth in yield that do not require additional water or fertilizer are an obvious escape route. To the extent that GE technologies have the potential to enhance yields, land can be released into other uses, including conservation.

Conclusion Growth in GE product markets has been limited by demand in some regions, by official acts to curtail market access, and by regulations directed at the product development stage. Caution is indeed appropriate in the light of conceivable risks posed for human health, the environment and the technology’s own sustainability. However, two decades of widespread use have passed for some products and technology performance has been closely scrutinized.

Some concerns, such as about contamination to other crops due to pollen drift and also the transitory nature of resistance, have materialized. Others concerns have not materialized. Data weigh heavily against the existence of significant adverse health impacts for livestock or humans. Newer products that are directly targeted at yield and quality enhancement are available and, regulatory issues aside, the costs of product development have declined dramatically over the past two decades. A reality check is in order. The costs to countries who do not allow the technology or imports of products derived from the technology have grown over time in the form of more expensive food budgets and greater environmental costs. But those most harmed by regulations imposed in high income countries may be the vulnerable in poorer countries where the technology’s yield impacts are likely greatest and where pesticide management is often lax.

NURTURING THE WORLD CROSSING AGRICULTURE WITH NUTRITION Calestous Juma

Calestous Juma is Professor of the Practice of International Development at Harvard Kennedy School. He is author of The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa (OUP, 2015) and Innovation and Its Enemies: Why People Resist New Technologies (OUP, 2016). Twitter @Calestous

T

he 20th century farming systems that helped to feed an ever-growing population relied on a small number of staple crops. Their production came with extensive ecological impacts and social dislocation. The 21st century demands a different model with emphasis on “nurturing people”.

The essential features of that model include emphasis on balancing between production and nutrition, diversification of the food base, and conservation of agricultural biodiversity.

The way forward might lie in unexpected areas of agricultural advancement. Coffee has been one of the most successful global crops in both production and consumption. With the humble origins in Ethiopia, the crop is cultivated in the tropics in a geographical belt stretching 25 degrees north or south of the equator. But the bulk of the consumption occurs in the industrialized countries.

This enduring image of tropical crops powering habits and feeding the world has become a template against which large parts of the larger structure of global agricultural relations are viewed.

Coffee cultivation has eluded North American farmers for centuries. Not anymore. Coffee is now being grown in California Good Land Organics farm north of Santa Barbara. This location is about 19

degrees north of any commercial coffee plantation in the world. Coffee production has also been started on farms spanning from San Luis Obispo south to San Diego.

To add to this little-known development, it was announced in early 2017 that scientists had sequenced the genome of Coffea arabica, the most commercially valuable species. Data from the sequence will play a key role in developing new varieties of coffee with enhanced flavors and aromas.

It will also assist breeders to develop disease-resistant varieties and extend cultivation to regions that were previously considered unsuitable.

The story of coffee provides an important backdrop against which to review the future of global agriculture. It shows how scientific advances and consumer preferences are shaping breeding programs and shifting the location of agricultural production.

The most dominant theme in world agriculture has been the need to feed a growing world population that is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050. The idea of “feeding the world” is a powerful idiom that has been carried over from efforts in the 20 century to leverage the power of plant breeding, use of agrochemicals and farm mechanization to global food needs in face of major famines in countries such as India. The success of this model lay in focusing on improving yields to meet the calorific intake of the people. th

The world relies on nearly 150 crops species for its food. Of these, 12 species meet nearly 75% of HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 17

the needs. Nearly half of the world food energy comes from corn, wheat and rice. The four major world staples (corn, wheat, rice and potatoes) were results of geographical serendipity, local knowledge and unique agronomic and nutritional properties.

They diffused worldwide and became the foundations of modern agriculture. Plant breeders drove the agricultural agenda through emphasis on improving yields. Nutritional concerns became a priority for professionals such as doctors concerned with the impacts of food on the human body. There was little contact between the two as the groups diverged in their interests, incentives and institutional location.

Aligning global nutritional and agricultural goals will entail at least two strategic approaches.

First, policy makers and the public will need to appreciate the critical role that advances in science, technology and engineering play in our ability to nourish the world. The fact that coffee can be grown in California suggests that it is also possible to extend the cultivation of crops that are selected for their nutritional value. Advances in genomics (including emerging techniques such as gene editing), will play a key role in improving our understanding of the relations between crops and farming systems. This will be facilitated by the lowering of the cost of sequencing genomes as well as improved understanding of ecosystems.

Second, the need to expand the global food basket will involve greater efforts to conserve agricultural biodiversity. The dominance of a few staple crops has relegated a large number of crops to the margins of agricultural production. Many have gone extinct or are threatened despite the existence of a large array of international gene banks. Many of these crops come with the unflattering names such as “ancient grains”, “edible weeds”, “famine crops”, “local crops”, “lost crops”, “neglected crops” and “orphan crops”, and “wild foods”. With advances in science and technology, it is now possible to reevaluate these and many other crops and design farming systems that balance between yield and nutritional value.

Many of such crops are still culturally significant in Africa where they are cultivated and consumed with varying degrees of consistency. For example, a survey of the US National Academy of Sciences documented 14 grains, 18 vegetables and 14 18 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

fruits that are consumed in parts of Africa and could be part of new efforts to nurture Africa. The survey documented a very small representation of the range of indigenous crops that are consumed in Africa.

Efforts to expand the world’s food basket should also take the long-term impacts of climate change into consideration. Most of the major food energy sources are annual crops that require extensive use of water and agricultural land. They are inherently susceptible to climate change. Adding tree crops to the food basket could help make global agriculture more resilient. One example of such crops is breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis).

The National Tropical Botanical Garden in Hawaii maintains 226 accessions and nearly 120 breadfruit varieties. They were collected from 34 Pacific islands, Honduras, Indonesia, the Philippines, and the Seychelles. The associated Breadfruit Institute is distributing, on a small scale, varieties developed from the collections. The initiative could be part of a larger undertaking to expand nutritional sources while addressing the climate change challenge.

The challenge of integrating nutrition into agricultural production is partly driven by growing awareness over the state of global health. Based on calorific intake, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that worldwide over 12% (or 900 million people) of the world’s population is undernourished. About 26% of the world’s children are stunted. About 2 billion people suffer from micronutrient deficiencies. On the other end of the spectrum, about 1.4 billion people are overweight, with 500 million of them being obese.

The international community is starting to address these challenges at a time when there is heightened awareness over the long-term implications of climate change for global food security. The way forward will include designing strategies that advance the twin objectives of production and nutrition while taking into account sustainability considerations, especially the conservation of biological diversity.

Central to this strategy is the need to harness the world’s pool of scientific and technological knowledge and bring it to nourish the world. This is true of industrialized countries that can now grow coffee as it is of the emerging regions from where such crops originated.

NECESSARY REGULATORY CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S OVERSIGHT OF GE CROPS

Gregory Jaffe Gregory Jaffe is the Director of the Project on Biotechnology for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

I

n 2016, American farmers planted more varieties of genetically engineered (GE) crops than ever before on approximately 170 million acres of farmland (United States Department of Agriculture and National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2016). The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a thorough report, which found no evidence of harm from eating foods made from GE crops (The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016). However, many American consumers continue to believe that foods and ingredients from GE crops are not safe, and some food manufacturers are eliminating those ingredients from their food products and adding “non-GMO” label claims.

Is there a way to bridge the current divide between farmers and consumers? The federal government hoped to partially address those differing viewpoints by revising its Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology (The White House, 2017), and setting forth a National Strategy for Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products (The White House, 2016). One of the goals of the 18-month

process that produced those two government policies was to “increase consumer confidence” in both the regulatory system and the safety of products in commerce (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2015). While the clarification and changes identified in those new policies will be helpful for many developers of crops and animals using modern biotechnologies, they will not change the tone or rancor of the societal debate about product safety, nor will they lead to greater consumer acceptance. The federal regulatory system needs basic changes before some consumers in the United States embrace the GE crops currently grown by farmers.

Current Consumer Perceptions about the Safety of Foods Made from GE Crops In a 2015 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 88 percent of scientists researching GE foods said they believed foods from GE crops were safe, while only 37 percent of consumers believed the same (Pew Research Center, 2015). In a more recent 2016 Pew Research Center poll, 10 percent of consumers said GE ingredients were better for their health, 48 percent said they were no better and no worse, and 39 percent said they were worse. In addition, half of the people who said eating GE ingredients was worse for their health believed the risk from eating GE ingredients was high (Funk, 2016). Similarly, a 2016 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll found 27 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 19

percent of consumers disagreed with a statement that GE foods are safe, 39 percent agreed with the statement, and 30 percent stated that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. The poll also found that 50 percent of consumers said they would avoid a food product containing GE ingredients (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2016). Therefore, while there is a scientific consensus that foods and ingredients from GE crops are safe, many consumers don’t yet believe in their safety.

FDA Must Review Each GE Crop and Determine it to be Safe for Human Consumption The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). That statute only requires mandatory pre-market approval for “food additives.” In 1992, FDA determined that adding new DNA into crops is not considered a “food additive” (US Food and Drug Administration, 1992). Instead, FDA set up a voluntary consultation process, by which GE crop developers can share food-safety data with FDA to allow for the identification of any deficiencies in the company’s safety assessment of the GE crop. To date, approximately 150 GE crops have completed FDA’s voluntary consultation process (US Food and Drug Administration, 2016). FDA concludes the process with a letter stating it has “no further questions about the safety of the GE crop,” but it does not render an opinion about whether the GE crop is safe to eat.

FDA’s review process for GE crops is inadequate because it is not mandatory, and when it is completed, FDA does not state its opinion about the safety of foods and ingredients made from the GE crop in question. Consumers want an independent agency like FDA to determine that foods and ingredients made from GE crops are safe to eat before those foods are marketed to them. To achieve a safety determination by FDA, Congress should amend the FFDCA to require a mandatory, premarket approval process that is transparent and allows for public participation. Such a process would result in greater assurance of food safety and greater public confidence in GE crops. Improving public confidence is essential, since many consumers do not think GE foods are safe to eat.

USDA Must Establish a Science-Based Regulatory System to Address Potential Impacts from GE Crops The United States Department of Agriculture

20 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

(USDA) regulates GE crops to ensure that they don’t harm agricultural interests and the environment. However, that regulatory system is not consistent with two important principles of an oversight system based on science and potential risk. The revised Coordinated Framework reiterates those principles, which are that: (1) oversight must be commensurate with risk, and (2) the government should regulate the final product, not the process by which it is made (The White House, 2017). However, USDA’s current regulatory system for GE crops is inconsistent with those principles and needs to be changed.

“Consumers want an independent agency like FDA to determine that foods and ingredients made from GE crops are safe to eat before those foods are marketed to them” USDA’s regulatory system for GE crops is based on its oversight of “plant pests” in the Plant Protection Act (Code of Federal Regulations, 2017). USDA has identified a list of plant pests, which are organisms that can harm agricultural interests (United States Department of Agriculture,

2016). Under USDA’s current regulations, a GE crop is considered a “potential” plant pest if any of its newly introduced DNA came from an organism on USDA’s list of plant pests, or if the method of introducing DNA into the crop’s genome involved an organism on USDA’s list of plant pests (Code of Federal Regulations, 2017). For example, any GE crop using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation to introduce new DNA is considered to be a potential plant pest and subject to oversight. However, when that same DNA is introduced using the gene-gun method of transformation, USDA has no oversight over the GE crop – the difference being the use of Agrobacterium, which is a recognized plant pest.

“USDA should revise its oversight to only regulate GE crops that pose potential risks to agriculture and/or the environment. Such a system would no longer regulate based on the process of making the product or the inclusion of plant pest DNA” The method used to create a new GE-crop variety – not whether the crop-trait combination

poses potential risks or impacts to the environment or agriculture – currently determines USDA oversight. Currently, USDA could be wasting its resources regulating safe-crop varieties created using Agrobacterium, while potentially unsafe-GE varieties created using a gene gun go unregulated. To solve this problem and to create a regulatory system that is science-based, USDA should revise its oversight to only regulate GE crops that pose potential risks to agriculture and/or the environment. Such a system would no longer regulate based on the process of making the product or the inclusion of plant pest DNA. A new regulatory system would allow developers and USDA to concentrate on potential impacts of GE crops, such as the development of resistant weeds and resistant pests, rather than analyzing whether adding one or two genes to a domesticated crop results in plant-pest characteristics. To date, USDA has reviewed over 125 GE crops, and never once has it found a GE crop to exhibit plant-pest characteristics (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017). If USDA cannot put this type of risk-based regulatory system in place using existing laws, then Congress should provide USDA with the legal authority to set up a science-based regulatory system.

Conclusion If farmers are to continue growing GE crops, consumers must believe they are safe to eat and make a positive contribution to agriculture. The current regulatory oversight by FDA is unlikely to make consumers more comfortable with the safety of GE crops and foods and ingredients made from those crops. However, if FDA instituted a mandatory approval process for GE crops, public perception of GE crops could become much more favorable. In addition, if USDA used a science-based regulatory system to regulate GE crops and manage any potential environmental and agricultural impacts, GE crops would be able to better contribute to making agriculture sustainable. While such regulatory changes would require significant departures from current federal oversight and likely entail Congressional action, such actions are necessary to allow safe and beneficial GE crops to be planted, harvested, and accepted well into the future.

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 21

GMOS BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS FOR REGULATING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND TRADE Sam Halabi Sam Halabi, J.D. ('05), MPhil, is an Associate Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law and a Scholar at the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. His book, Intellectual Property and the New International Economic Order is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press.

O

ne of the fascinating aspects of Donald Trump’s rise in American politics is the revolution he has led against the dogma of free trade among Republican (and, for that matter, Democratic) elite circles. When the major international trade bargain of the last generation was struck – the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) – it was widely viewed as a victory for U.S., European and Japanese firms and, to a lesser extent, Asian, African, and Latin American countries. The agreement aligned tariffand non-tariff barrier lowering and most-favored nation provisions with the economic strengths of these respective parties – firms in developed countries got major protections for intellectual property investments which represented important sectors of value-added growth, especially for agriculture and life sciences, while developing countries won lower barriers to trade in agricultural goods, clothes, and textiles where they held comparative advantage. This is why American and European pharmaceutical companies may now obtain patents for drugs in India (it did not allow them from its founding until the establishment of the WTO on the theory that provision of inexpensive medicine was a duty of the state), textile employment in South Carolina declined by 68.2% between 1990 and 2005, and China experienced extraordinary export-led growth after it 22 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

joined the WTO in 2001 (Eades et. al. 2015).

The fate of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and their corresponding pecuniary and social value, were among the most difficult aspects of the negotiations. Article 27(3)(b) of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) allowed governments to ban patents on “plants and animals other than microorganisms” while leaving “micro-organisms” undefined. TRIPS did require governments to allow intellectual property protections for new plant varieties. The scope of the provision is important because after firms obtain patents on seeds and other genetic resources (like tailored pesticides), they may charge high prices for those products, and may pursue legal action against farmers who use patented seeds without authorization (even when that use was unknowingly or done as a result of traditional practices like seed saving and exchange). These protections can be devastating in poor countries whose farmers depend upon seed collection and exchange for their livelihood.

Indeed, that was the argument made by lowerand middle-income countries, which asserted that the Convention on Biological Diversity should inform the WTO’s interpretation of provisions that affected GMOs. In 1992, three years before the establishment of the WTO, the Convention on Biological Diversity not only endeavored to create worldwide agreement on conservation of biodiversity and sustainable practices for plant genetic resources, but it also established a general regime for “access and benefit sharing” when those genetic resources were utilized. For example, if Nestle wanted to use a bush

indigenous to South Africa to create a new food additive, it would need to 1) seek permission from South Africa to use the bush and 2) promise to share resulting revenues with the government or perhaps another subnational population.

The result has been a decades-long dispute between countries in North America, Europe, and Japan that host firms undertaking the most robust research on the genetics of seeds and plants and the countries, mostly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, that provided the genetic resources that allowed that research (and corresponding seeds and agrochemical products) to advance. The latter countries, especially in Africa, always argued that TRIPS had to be read together with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), effectively allowing those governments to prohibit patents on genetic resources used for food or to share in the benefits arising from research that used their genetic resources.

One consequence of that dispute was the 2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (International Seed Treaty), which was adopted pursuant to the CBD and sought to protect farmers from firms’ efforts to assert intellectual property rights claims against them. Article 9 of the International Seed Treaty enumerates three elements of farmers’ rights: (1) protection of relevant traditional knowledge, (2) the right of farmers to participate equitably in sharing benefits arising from the utilization of plant genetic resources, and (3) the right of farmers to participate in making decision at national levels. The treaty further provides that “nothing in this Article shall be interpreted to limit any rights that farmers have to save, use, exchange, and sell farm-saved seed/propagating material, subject to national law and as appropriate.” The International Seed Treaty also provides for an intellectual property access and sharing regime under which monetary revenues from commercialization of certain covered resources are shared under fairly limited conditions and product samples and non-confidential information are also shared. Many countries, including India and Zambia, have adopted implementing laws that provide extensive protections to farmers (Winter 2010).

The latest agreement aimed at regulating the relationship between genetic resources and commercial exploitation is the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (Nagoya Protocol), a treaty adopted

pursuant to the CBD and intending to give teeth to its provisions on benefit sharing (it entered into force in October, 2014). Countries adopting legislation or regulation pursuant to the treaty ensure that any genetic resources within the territory of that country condition access to those materials on prior informed consent not only of the country of origin “in accordance with domestic law,” but also the consent of indigenous and local communities. Once access to genetic resources results in a commercially viable product, “benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources as well as subsequent applications and commercialization shall be shared in a fair and equitable way with the Party providing such resources that is the country of origin of such resources or a Party that has acquired the genetic resources in accordance with the Convention.” In short, developing countries are increasingly using agreements on biodiversity to weaken disadvantageous provisions in international trade law, or at least, redistribute gains that would otherwise run entirely to firms in wealthy countries.

Of course, GMOs are not only a subject of disagreement between wealthy and poor countries. Even among wealthy countries, GMOs cause trade problems. The E.U. and the U.S., for example, have been unable to resolve differences over whether governments should be allowed to require firms to label food so that people know that what they consume contains genetically modified ingredients or resulted from the use of GMOs. Because there is no scientific evidence to suggest harm to human health, the U.S. argues, labels informing consumers about GMOs just serve to depress demand for U.S. goods which use GMOs more readily than their European equivalents (EU rules allow member states to entirely prohibit GMO crops even when EU-level assessment shows no harm to human health).

Yet what all of these disagreements mean for Trump’s stated trade negotiation strategy – “repealing and replacing” existing multilateral trade deals with bilateral ones more favorable to U.S. manufacturing interests – may hurt sectors privileged in existing agreements. Many developing countries have been clamoring for the opportunity to revise WTO agreements applicable to GMOs since they were adopted and what may replace them – bilateral or multilateral – are agreements that reflect these countries’ more sophisticated and better informed experience with how trade deals work.

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 23

24 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

CAN GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED CROPS SOLVE PROBLEMS?

Joanna Sax

Dr. Joanna Sax is a Professor of Law at California Western School of Law in San Diego, CA. She received her JD and PhD from the University of Pennsylvania.

W

e have big problems to solve – feeding a growing population, sustainability, climate change, and malnutrition, just to name a few. Our food supply must evolve to meet these demands. As humans, we have genetically modified our food supply to obtain crops with desired traits. In other words, our entire food supply is genetically modified using a variety of techniques including hybridization, chemical mutagenesis and xrays (Conko, et al., 34 Nature Biotechnology 493-503 (2016)). With the discovery of recombinant DNA technology, scientists figured out how to modify crops in a more precise way. Over the past three decades, the techniques to precisely modify crops have grown. (Conko, et al., 34 Nature Biotechnology 493-503 (2016)). Although the term “GMO” is colloquially used, the phrase genetic engineering is more descriptive.

The use of genetic engineering techniques to improve our food supply is a hot button issue. An enormous amount of time and energy is spent

defending and attacking the utility of such crops. Resistance to new technology is not novel. This article explores one explosive tidbit in the larger realm of opposition and support for genetically engineered crops.

A recent article in the New York Times inflamed debate on both sides of the issue. On October 29, 2016, the New York Times published an article written by Danny Hakim called “Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops” (Hakim, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gm o-promise-falls-short.html). In this article, the author reports that “genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.” This article describes this as a “broken promise.” To support the position taken in the article, the author compares the yield rates in the U.S. (in which farmers grow genetically engineered crops) to Western Europe and provides: “For corn, The Times compared the United States with Western Europe. Over three decades, the trend lines between the two barely deviate.” In addition, the Times reported “And sugar beets, a major source of sugar, HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 25

“Expansion and adoption of genetically engineered crops might contribute to solving major problems. We need to have that discussion.” have shown stronger growth recently in Western Europe than the United States, despite the dominance of genetically modified varieties over the last decade.” Overall, Hakim’s article in the New York Times appeared to promote a negative viewpoint of genetically-engineered crops.

Advocates of genetically engineered crops were swift to respond to the New York Times article. Dr. Nina V. Federoff penned a review of Hakim’s article (Federoff, http://www.ofwlaw.com/2016/11/01/hakimseffort-to-skewer-biotech-crops-in-sundays-nytimes/). At the outset, Federoff clarifies that genetically engineered crops have not been designed to accelerate increases in crop yields. Thus, according to Federoff: “[C]iting yield data is simply disingenuous.” Federoff continued to explain that the New York Times report stating that genetically engineered crops have not led to a decrease in pesticide use was inaccurate. Quoting weed scientist Andrew Kniss: “This is faulty, because even though France has decreased pesticide use, they still use FAR more pesticides than we do here in the U.S. This comparison is further meaningless since we grow much different crops, and have much different climates. [. . .]. Using national-level pesticide use data to make sweeping conclusions about GMO use simply doesn’t make sense.” Federoff also addressed the New York Times report that herbicide use has increased in the U.S. by clarifying that Hakim “neglects to mention that the major herbicide used, glyphosate, is much less toxic than its predecessors. Hence, most sound analyses do not analyze simple amounts used, but a more sophisticated measure called the ‘environmental impact quotient’ or EIQ.” Finally, there is the larger point that conventional farmers in the U.S. show a preference for genetically engineered seeds, which they would not do if they did not see a benefit 26 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

(Federoff).

The square-off between Hakim and Federoff is but one example in a larger effort to gain public opposition or public trust regarding genetic engineering technology. But, the real issue is whether the technology can be used to solve major problems.

Currently, the vast majority of genetically engineered crops are commodity varieties, such as corn, soy and sugar beets. But, to really solve global issues, genetic engineering techniques and the crops produced therefrom will need to expand to solve regional problems such as malnutrition (e.g. Golden Rice) or a local pest (Papaya). (William Saletan, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/s cience/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_agains t_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html).

Expansion and adoption of genetically engineered crops might contribute to solving major problems. We need to have that discussion.

Rhetoric aimed at misinforming the general public can create public resistance. The response(s) to Hakim’s New York Times reported that Hakim failed to provide a full picture of the promises and implementation of genetically engineered crops. (Val Giddings, https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/11/11/ scientists-open-letter-ny-times-public-editorbrightlines-danny-hakims-misleading-gmoarticle/). In addition, the magnitude and importance of these back-and-forth exchanges are being recognized, too: a British group is in the process of archiving the opposition and promotion of genetically engineered crops, dubbing it “history”. They plan to use this archive to understand how scientific movements can be killed by opposition or overcome by proponents. (Vivian Moses, The Debate over GM Crops is Making History, 537 Nature 139 (2016)).

So, let’s talk about an important issue that keeps the science of genetic engineering from fulfilling an important goal. One of the major problems for the application of genetic engineering techniques to solve our major problems is the immense regulatory structure in place for the approval (really, de-regulation) of a genetically engineered crop prior to market entry. It takes an estimated 13 years and $136 million to move through the U.S. regulatory process. (Prado et al, 65 Annu.

Rev. Plant. Biol. 769-90 (2014)). This means that, from an economic perspective, it incentivizes mostly large scale commodity crops with pest-resistant or herbicide tolerant traits. (Strauss and Sax, 34 Nature Biotechnology 474-77 (2016)). And the heavy regulatory system ends up dis-incentivizing small niche products that might be engineered to address a local problem, such as a fungus in small region of the country. (Strauss and Sax, 34 Nature Biotechnology 474-77 (2016)). The other problem is that sometimes, heavy regulation signals to the public that there are reasons why so much regulation is needed. (Wiedermann and Schutz, 113 Environ.

Health Perspect. 402-405 (2005)). In other words, consumers may believe that heavy regulation is in place because there is a lot of risk with genetically engineered crops. The scientific consensus, however, is that genetically engineered crops are as safe as conventional crops.

We need to have a robust discussion about ways to harness innovation and technology to solve major problems. Rhetoric will get in the way of an evidence-based discussion. If scientists and consumers have concerns about the impact of genetically-engineered crops, then we should have a fact based and comparative discussion about the benefits and risks. Similarly, if scientists and consumers want to promote genetically engineered crops, then we should have a fact-based discussion about the benefits and the risks. We have to figure out a way to feed a growing population and address sustainability issues. Right now, people are dying of hunger and malnutrition. Doing nothing is simply not a solution.

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 27

HIGH-TECH AGRICULTURE OR AGROECOLOGY FOR TOMORROW'S AGRICULTURE? Sylvie Bonny Sylvie Bonny is a research scientist at INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research). She works in agricultural economics, notably on techno-economic change in agriculture, such as the impact of GM crops.

T

oday high-tech agriculture (particularly biotechnology) and agroecology are often considered as opposed pathways. However, when one wishes to address the issues of food security, there is no technological panacea. High-tech agriculture and agroecology should not be so deeply opposed. Rather, they should be combined as much as possible. Agroecology is defined as "the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable food systems" (Gliessman, 2007).

Consensus on the need for more sustainable agriculture, yet strong controversy over the right course to take While many people call for sustainable agriculture and better nutrition or diet, very different answers are given, particularly to the issue of "how to sustainably feed the growing population in the next decades."

Among them, two main pathways can be roughly identified. The first is to increase agricultural 28 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

and food production, mainly by the applications of science and technological advances to enhance production, efficiency, and better use of resources.

This leads to recommending high-tech agriculture, especially involving biotech crops, new information technologies, precision farming, robots, and other techno-scientific advances.

The second is to implement ecological and grassroot technologies and practices, as well as participatory research, more local supply, diet change, etc. This leads to recommending agroecology including its practices, knowledge and social aspects.

Agroecology "is based on applying ecological concepts and principles to optimize interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment while taking into consideration the social aspects that need to be addressed for a sustainable and fair food system" (FAO, 2017).

These two pathways are frequently seen as opposed. Their respective supporters, proponents, and stakeholders are often different, and rather frequently in conflict. Usually the agricultural input industries, i.e. the farm machinery industry, the agrochemical and seed industry, the feed industry, etc. put forward high-tech agriculture. It is considered as the best way to efficiently use inputs, manage costs, and

respect the environment while being highly productive. This is presented as a way to increase production without requiring too much additional farmland or water.

At the same time some farmers' organizations and a certain number of scientists and organizations promote agroecology based on understanding and managing ecological processes and biological functions to increase and sustain agricultural productivity (FAO, 2015; Hatt et al., 2016). They put forward several aspects, such as (Valenzuela, 2016): – the conservation of resources and the implementation of eco-efficient and integrated farming systems with few chemicals, particularly few chemical pesticides, – the promotion of biodiversity: genetic diversity, species diversity as well as ecosystem diversity, – a better management of physical and biological resources, – the regeneration and maintenance of soil quality, – the recycling of nutrients, – the diversification of cropping systems, the association of crop and animal production, and also of trees and wild vegetation, – landscape-wide management.

The points of view of scientists in the public research sector appear to be diverse. While a great part of scientists involved in plant breeding promote biotech, a certain number of scientists involved in agricultural sciences, ecology, or social sciences seem to be keener for agroecology. In each country the adopted policies of the Ministries of Agriculture also play a role, as well as the views of the public and cultural aspects. Some countries such as the USA appear to invest mainly in high-tech agriculture, while others such as some European countries tend in addition to favor agroecological approaches, at least in part. For example, in Europe many people are opposed to GMOs while in the USA in the last 20 years their general acceptance has been better: so, in 2015 the EU grew only 0.13 million hectares (Mha) of GM crops while the USA grew 71 Mha. By contrast there were 11 Mha of organic area in the EU and approximately 2.2 in the USA. However, research and development (R&D) expenditures geared to high-tech agriculture seem to be much higher than those to agroecology, especially since a growing part of agricultural R&D is made by the private sector (Fuglie, 2014). Even public research in agroecology is

rather limited (DeLonge, 2016; UCS, 2016; Vanloqueren, Baret, 2009).

The term “agroecology” has three main dimensions: a scientific discipline, a social movement, and farming practices (Wezel et al., 2009). Here we focus mainly on the scientific aspects. However, some scientists and organizations, particularly some peasant organizations such as Via Campesina, also emphasize socio-political aspects of agroecology. "Agroecology is not only about farming practices, it is a holistic approach that includes cultural diversity and social justice as important aims of our food and farming systems. Agroecology is a central pillar of food sovereignty, a global grassroots movement working to combat poverty, inequality and hunger (…). World hunger is caused primarily by poverty, lack of democracy and unequal access to land, water and other resources and infrastructure, especially among women. Rather than simply producing more food under unequal conditions, the solution to hunger hinges on creating more democratic and fair political and economic systems that expand access to resources” (FoEE, 2016).

A strong controversy, but also some commonalities High-tech agriculture also needs to take agroecological aspects into account to avoid ecological and social damage. The use of advanced technologies doesn't exempt one from following good agricultural practices such as crop rotations, crop diversification, and sustainable use of natural resources. High-tech agriculture also requires agroecological knowledge for the proper design and implementation of its technologies. For example, GM herbicide-tolerant crops should have been cultivated by taking into account rotations of herbicides and crops to avoid the development of herbicide-resistant weeds that have become a major issue in the last few years (Bonny, 2016). GM crops with single, double, even triple gene resistance to some insects are not sufficient: the durability of this genetic resistance requires proper management and an association with other practices in order to prevent a rapid loss of efficacy.

Besides, the applications of high technologies will not be able to ensure sustainable farming if they are not sustainably used and implemented. They need to be linked with good agricultural, economic, environmental, and socio-political practices.

Furthermore, their accessibility, affordability, and conditions of use are essential.

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 29

Agroecology needs much techno-scientific knowledge, many scientific advances, and technological tools, in addition to local and farmer knowledge. Agroecology also requires very high knowledge, both tacit and practical as well as scientific and technological. The application of ecological principles to agricultural and food systems requires skills in agro-ecosystems, biodiversity, nutrition, etc.

For example, much research and experimentation are needed on intercropping, mixture of varieties, integrated pest management, biocontrol, nutrient recycling, soil enhancement techniques, biodiversity, agroforestry impacts, landscape design (with interactions between crops, hedges, wetlands, and semi-natural elements), diversification of farm production, etc. Much research is needed so that these practices can be adopted and be productive enough. Re-embedding agriculture in nature and relying much more on functional biodiversity and internal resources need a lot of research work, particularly if we take into account the challenges of climate change, population growth, and the loss of arable land due to encroachment of urban areas.

Therefore, both high-tech agriculture and agroecology are in need of scientific, technical, practical, and local knowledge. Both are knowledge intensive and need multidisciplinary approaches.

The governance of economic, social and environmental aspects is at stake An important aspect of innovations is the governance of their context, i.e. their socioeconomic and sociopolitical environment, their affordability and conditions of access. These last aspects depend notably on the direction, implementation and regulation of innovations whether agroecological or high-tech. These characteristics mainly stem from the general governance of the agri-food sector. However, this governance doesn't depend predominantly on the agri-food sector itself, but mainly on the general governance of economic, social, and environmental issues.

Regarding food security, a high level of food production, whether globally or just in certain countries, is not sufficient per se to avoid food insecurity. One major reason of food insecurity is poverty, not the lack of food production globally. The four pillars of food security are the physical 30 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

availability of food, the economic and physical access to food (notably its affordability), food utilization, and the stability of these three components (FAO, 2009).

Therefore technological aspects are not sufficient; sociopolitical factors are also essential.

“Besides, the applications of high technologies will not be able to ensure sustainable farming if they are not sustainably used and implemented. They need to be linked with good agricultural, economic, environmental, and sociopolitical practices.�

Thus, high-tech agriculture and agroecology should not be so deeply opposed, they should rather be combined as far as possible. However, this implies changes in their governance. For example, high-tech and biotechnology should not predominantly be in the hands of companies which are highly dependent on financial markets requiring high and very rapid profitability (which could not be the case in the agricultural sector). There should also be better communication between the scientific sector and the general public, to avoid reciprocal mistrust, or even rejection, as has been the case for GMOs in several countries.

Conclusion High-tech agriculture should not hold agroecological principles and practices in contempt.

Likewise, agroecology should not position itself as opposed to techno-scientific advances. Given the magnitude of the challenges that humanity is facing, there is no room for sterile opposition, or for reliance upon one single alternative, whether that is high-tech agriculture or agroecology

References Genetically Modified Organisms in the Food System Ruth MacDonald Bourn, D., and Prescott, J. (2002). A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 42(1):1-34.

Bruening, G., and Lyons, J.M. (2000, July-August). The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato. California Agriculture, Volume 54:4, 2000.

European Commission (2001-2010). A decade of EU-funded GMO research. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010.

Ewen, S.W.B., and Pusztai, A. (1999). Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galantus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354, 1353-1354, 1999.

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Wechsler, S., Livingston, M. and Mitchell, L. (2014, February). Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. USDA-Economic Research Service Report Number 162.

Gasser, C.S., and Fraley, R.T. (1989). Genetically engineering plants for crop improvement. Science, vol. 244: (4910), 1293-1299, 1989 Hoefkens, C., Sioen, I., Baert, K., De Meulenaer, B., De Henauw, S., Vandekinderen, I., Devlieghere, F., Opsomer, A., Verbeke, W., Van Camp, J. (2010). Consuming organic versus conventional vegetables: The effect on nutrient and contamination intakes. Food and Chemical Toxicology 48, 3058-3066.

International Food Information Council Foundation (2016). 2016 Food and Health Survey. Retrieved from IFIC website http://www.foodinsight.org/articles/2016-food-and-health-survey-food-decision-2016-impact-growing-nationalfood-dialogue National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23395.

Pew Research Center (2015, January). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Survey results retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ USDA Animal and Health Inspection Service (2017). Petitions for Determination of Nonregulated Status. Retrieved from https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/permits-notifications-petitions/petitions/petitionstatus U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (2011). 2011 USFRA Farmer/Rancher Survey. Retrieved from http://www.fooddialogues.com/press-release/antibiotics/nationwide-surveys-reveal-disconnect-between-americansand-their-food United Kingdom Parliamentary Business (1999, March). Select Committee on Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmsctech/286/9030802.htm Winter, C. (2015, July). Chronic dietary exposure to pesticide residues in the United States. International Journal of Food Contamination, 10 July 2015: DOI 10.1186/s40550-015-0018-y.

Zhao, X., Chambers IV, E., Matta, Z., Loughin, T.M. and Carey, E.E. (2007). Consumer sensory analysis of organically and conventionally grown vegetables. Journal of Food Science 72(2), S87-S91, 2007.

The Reality (and Illusion) of GMO Opposition Katherine Tutrone Blancke, S., Breusegem, F. V., Jaeger, G. D., Braeckman, J., & Montagu, M. V. (2015). Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends in Plant Science, 20(7).

Cattaneo, M. G., Yafuso, C., Schmidt, C., Huang, C., Rahman, M., Olson, C., Ellers-Kirk, C., Orr, B., Marsh, S., Antilla, L., Dutilleul, P., and Carriere, Y. (2006). Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(20).

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits.

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1).

National survey of healthcare consumers: genetically engineered food (National Survey). (2010). Retrieved from http://www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/NPR_report_GeneticEngineeredFood-1.pdf National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press Rozin, P., Fischler, C., & Shields-Argelès, C. (2012). European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite, 59(2).

Sternberg, R. (1982). Natural, unnatural, and supernatural concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 14.

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 31

Genetically Modified Organisms: From a Breeder’s Context P. Stephen Baenziger Baenziger, P.S., and R.M. DePauw. (2009). Wheat breeding: Procedures and strategies. In B.F. Carver (ed.) Wheat: Science and Trade (275-308). Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

Cardi, Teodoro, C. Neal Stewart Jr. (2016). Progress of targeted genome modification approaches in higher plants. Plant Cell Reports, 1401-1416.

Flavell, R.B. (2016). Greener revolutions for all. Nature Biotechnology, 34, 1106-1110.

Moghissi, A.A., S. Pei, and Y. Liu. (2016). Golden rice: Scientific, regulatory and public information processes of a genetically modified organism. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 36, 535-7.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23395.

Ye, X., S. Al-Babili, A. Klöti, J. Zhang, P. Lucca, P. Beyer, and I. Potrykus. (2000). Engineering the provitamin A (-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science, 287, 303-305.

Zhu, C., L. Bortesi, C. Baysal, R.M. Twyman, R. Fischer, T. Capell, S. Schillberg, and P. Christou. (2016). Characteristics of genome editing mutations in cereal crops. Trends in Plant Science, 22, 38-52.

Genetic Technologies and the Transformation of Agricultural Production David Hennessy Berry, W. (2005). Local knowledge in the age of information. The Hudson Review, 58(3), 399-410.

Chavas, J.-P., G. Shi, and J. Lauer. (2014). The effects of GM technology on maize yield. Crop Science, 54(4), 1331-1335.

Duvick, D.N. (2005). The contribution of breeding to yield advances in maize (Zea mays L.). Advances in Agronomy 86, 83-145.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859), 1243-1248.

Hutchison, W.D., E.C. Burkness, P.D. Mitchell, R.D. Moon, T.W. Leslie, S.J. Fleischer, M. Abrahamson, K.L. Hamilton, K.L. Steffey, M.E. Gray, R.L. Hellmich, L.V. Kaster, T.E. Hunt, R.J. Wright, K. Pecinovsky, T.L. Rabaey, B.R. Flood, and E.S. Raun. (2010). Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science, 330(6001), 222-225.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23395.

Perry, E.D., G. Moschini, and D.A. Hennessy. (2016a). Testing for complementarity: Glyphosate tolerant soybeans and conservation tillage. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 98(3), 765-784.

Perry, E.D., F. Ciliberto, D.A. Hennessy, and G. Moschini. (2016b). Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. maize and soybeans. Science Advances, 2(8), 1324-1338.

Pleasants, J.M. and K.S. Oberhauser. (2013). Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 6(2), 135-144.

Qaim, M., and D. Zilberman. (2003). Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science, 299(5608), 900-902.

Xu, Z., D.A. Hennessy, K. Sardana, and G. Moschini. (2013). The effects of GM technology on maize yield. Crop Science, 53(3), 735-745.

Nurturing the World: Crossing Agriculture with Nutrition Calestous Juma Fan, S. and Pandya-Lorch, R. eds. (2012). Reshaping Agriculture for Nutrition and Health, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Fresco, F. (2015). Hamburgers in Paradise: The Story of the Food We Eat, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA. Juma, C. (2014). Growing the Nutritional Revolution: A Plea for Niche Crops. Nestlé Foundation Report 2013. Switzerland: Nestlé Foundation Lausanne.

Juma, C. (2015). The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa, Oxford University Press, New York.

National Research Council. (1996). Lost Crops of Africa, Volume I: Grains. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council. (2006). Lost Crops of Africa, Volume II: Vegetables. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council. (2008). Lost Crops of Africa, Volume III: Grains. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Perkins, J. (1997). Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes, and the Cold War. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pingali, P. (2015). Agricultural Policy and Nutrition Outcomes—Getting Beyond the Preoccupation with Staple Grains. Food Security, 7 (3), 583–591.

Necessary Regulatory Changes to Improve the Federal Government’s Oversight of Genetically Engineered 32 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

Crops Gregory Jaffe Annenberg Public Policy Center. (2016). Americans support GMO food labels but don’t know much about safety of GM foods. Annenberg Public Policy Center. http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-support-gmo-foodlabels-but-dont-know-much-about-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/ Accessed January 23 2017.

Code of Federal Regulations. (2017). Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter III, Part 340. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr340_main_02.tpl.

Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2016). The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides over food science. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/the-new-food-fights/. Accessed January 23 2017.

The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects. Accessed January 23 2017.

Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2015). Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201612/documents/modernizing_the_reg_system_for_biotech_products_memo_final.pdf. Accessed January 24 2017.

Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/publicand-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/. Accessed January 23 2017.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2016). Regulated Pest List. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/permits/plants-and-plant-productspermits/prohibited/Importation-of-Plant-Parts-for-Propagation/CT_Regulated_pest_list. Accessed January 23 2017.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2017). Petitions for Determination of Nonregulated Status. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/permits-notifications-petitions/petitions/petition-status.

Accessed January 24 2017.

United States Department of Agriculture and National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2016). Acreage. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre/Acre-06-30-2016.pdf. Accessed January 23 2017.

US Food and Drug Administration. (1992). Guidance to Industry for Food Derived from New Plant Varieties. Federal Register 57:22984. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm09 6095.htm. Accessed January 23 2017.

US Food and Drug Administration. (2016). Biotechnology Consultations on Food from GE Plant Varieties. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=Biocon. Accessed January 24 2017.

The White House. (2016). National Strategy for Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/biotech_national_strategy_final.pdf.

Accessed January 23 2017.

The White House. (2017). Update to the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2017_coordinated_framework_update.pd f.

Genetically Modified Organisms between the International Legal Systems for Regulating Biological Diversity and Trade Sam Halabi 2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/en/ 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/abs/ Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights art. 8, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299 Eades, D., Barkley, D., and Henry, M. (2015). South Carolina's Textile and Apparel Industries: An Analysis of Trends in Traditional and Emerging Sectors. UCED Research Report 12-2007-01.

Winter, L. (2010). Cultivating Famers’ Rights: Reconciling Food Security, Indigenous Agriculture, and TRIPS. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 43:223, 249-50.

Can genetically engineered crops solve problems?

Joanna Sax Conko, Gregory et al. (2016, May 06). A Risk-Based approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms. Nature Biotechnology, 34. 493-503.

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY 33

Federoff, Nina V. (2016, November 1). Hakim’s Effort to Skewer Biotech Crops in Sunday’s NY Times. OFW Law. http://www.ofwlaw.com/2016/11/01/hakims-effort-to-skewer-biotech-crops-in-sundays-ny-times/ Giddings, Val. (2016, November 11). Scientists’ ‘Open Letter’ to NY Times’ Public Editor brightlines Danny Hakim’s ‘misleading’ GMO article. Genetic Literacy Project. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/11/11/scientists-openletter-ny-times-public-editor-brightlines-danny-hakims-misleading-gmo-article/ Hakim, Danny. (2016, October 29). Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html Moses, Vivian. (2016, September 6). The Debate over GM Crops is Making History. Nature, 537, 139. http://www.nature.com/news/the-debate-over-gm-crops-is-making-history-1.20542 Prado, JR et al. (2014). Genetically Engineered Crops: From Idea to Product. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 65, 769-90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24579994.

Saletan, William. (2015, July 15). Unhealthy Fixation. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is _full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html Strauss, Steven and Sax, Joanna. (2016, May 6). Nature Biotechnology, 34, 474-77. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v34/n5/full/nbt.3541.html Wiedermann, Peter and Schutz, Holger. (2005). The Precautionary Principle and Risk Perception: Experimental Studies in the EMF Area. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 402-405. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1278478/

High-tech Agriculture or Agroecology for Tomorrow’s Agriculture?

Sylvie Bonny Bonny, S. (2016). Genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops, weeds, and herbicides: overview and impact. Environmental Management, 57(1), 31-48. Doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0589-7 DeLonge, M. S., Miles, A., and Carlisle, L. (2016). Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. Environmental Science and Policy, 55, 266-273.

FAO (2009). An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security. http://www.fao.org/3/a-al936e.pdf FAO (2015). Agroecology for food security and nutrition: Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium, September 2014. 426 p. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4729e.pdf FAO (2017). Agroecology Knowledge Hub. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/agroecology/en/ FoEE (2016). Farming for the Future: Organic and Agroecological Solutions to Feed the World, Friends of the Earth Europe, Brussels.

Fuglie, K. O., and Toole, A. A. (2014). The evolving institutional structure of public and private agricultural research. American Journal Of Agricultural Economics, 96 (3), 862-883. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aat107 Gliessman, S. R. (2007). Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. 2nd Edition CRC Press. Boca Raton.

Hatt S. et al., (2016). Towards sustainable food systems: the concept of agroecology and how it questions current research practices. A review. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment. 20(S1), 215-224.

UCS (2016). Scientists Call for Public Investment in Agroecological Research http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/foodagriculture/solutions/advance-sustainable-agriculture/scientists-call-public-investmentagroecology#.WHIQWmVvgiA Valenzuela, H. (2016). Agroecology: A Global Paradigm to Challenge Mainstream Industrial Agriculture. Horticulturae, 2(1), 2.

Doi:10.3390/horticulturae2010002 Vanloqueren, G., and Baret, P. V. (2009). How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy, 38(6), 971-983.

Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., and David, C. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(4), 503-515. Doi: 10.1051/agro/2009004

PHOTO CREDITS Flickr: 1- Lindsay Eyink; 4 - In Good Nature; 8 - Chromatropic; 10 - Murt Phillips; 12 - Katie1653; 15 - R. Schnaible; 17 - Matthew Stevens; 19 - Peter Westendorp; 22 Glyn Lowe; 24 - Vicky Brock; 25 - Justin Rushde; 27 - Erik De Castro; 28 - Kay Ledbetter 34 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

The Review would like to thank the Harvard University Center for the Environment and the Harvard Undergraduate Council for underwriting the printing of this journal.

30 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY 2016

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY BOX # 215 59 SHEPARD STREET CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 32 HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY 2016