With long term studies still in progress, it is difficult to answer this question with absolute certainty just yet. However, here is what we do know for sure. Short term researches have shown no adverse impacts of GM food on human health. More than 80% of the experts working in the field vouch for the relative safety of this scientific endeavor. And this technology is not as young as most of us think it is.
In fact, throughout history, humans often interfered with the natural gene pool of organisms when they planted only the seeds of the hardiest of crops and mated only the best of animals to increase yields. This extremely common practice often referred to as selective breeding is a less streamlined, more imprecise and an infinitely more time consuming parent of genetic modification that we are so mistrusting of today.
As our understanding of the world around us has increased exponentially in the past few decades, scientists have found ways to modify the genes of organisms at a microscopic level instead of waiting around with uncertainty for decades to see if efforts at selective breeding would eventually bear results. And unlike most other technologies today, genetic modification is no longer just about the whims and greed of the rich but may also be one of the emerging solutions to the combined threats of climate change and population overgrowth that poor countries like ours will face in the future.
The UNFAO has estimated that with world population reaching 9.1 billion by 2050, food productions would have to increase by 70% to keep up. The statistics are direr for developing economies and projections estimate that farmers in such countries would have to double their yields by 2050 to be able to feed all the hungry mouths. On the other hand, estimates made by agronomic and economic sectors show that climate change will result in a six percent decrease in agricultural productions by 2080.
The numbers just don’t add up and no matter how optimistic the outlook, as a least developed, agrarian economy with low adaptive capacity and an extremely climate-sensitive topography, Nepal stands no chance whatsoever. With farmers in the hilly regions already facing the crippling effects of fluctuating temperatures and precipitation patterns, and with a population projection of a whopping 36 million by 2050, it is important for Nepalis to give GM crops a second – and a far less paranoid – consideration.
Climate change and agriculture are like the two sides of a coin. In the contemporary world, these two issues are intricately linked with each other and both occupy the dual roles of the perpetrator and the victim in each other’s context. Agriculture, as the second largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world, is often regarded as one of the major contributors to global warming. Global warming, conversely, adds to the woes of farmers by changing local biological and environmental conditions that lead to smaller harvests or even crop failures altogether.
It is thus understood that any long term solution to meet future food demands has to be able to promote sustainable agricultural practices by producing more food in an efficient manner even under unpredictable conditions all the while ensuring that GHG emissions are at their minimum. In this sector, GM crops might come to be of some help as it has been not only been known to reduce harmful emissions but also help crops adapt to climate change. A 2014 research has shown that GM crops increase crop yields by 22%, profits by 68% and reduce pesticide use by 37%.
A quick look at Nepal’s emission scenario tells us that agriculture is one of the key sectors that contribute to more than half of our GHG emissions. Rampant practices like deforestation, providing low quality feed to cattle, inadequate tillage practices and increasing fertilizer and pesticides use are responsible for climbing emissions rate that are bound to get even worse in the future.
Many herbicide-resistant GM crops have been produced today that require reduced or no tillage whatsoever. Tillage, which is the practice of turning over the soil for aeration and to kill weeds can be harmful when it is rampant (as it is in Nepal). As soil is turned over, the carbon in the soil comes in contact with the air and turns into carbon dioxide – one of the major GHGs. This reduces the carbon sequestration property of the soil drastically and releases carbon into the atmosphere. Studies have correlated herbicide resistant GMs to low-till or no-till practices which are in turn associated with not only low carbon dioxide emissions but also lower labor and fossil fuel consumptions by tillage machinery. In countries like the USA and Argentina where herbicide resistant soybeans are flourishing, no-till farming areas are becoming more and more common.
One of the most expensive, wasteful and polluting practices of farmers is spraying nitrogen fertilizers on their crops. While only a small amount of this nitrogen reaches the nitrogen-starved crops, majority of it will contaminate surface and ground water, the soil and the atmosphere. Upon interacting with soil bacteria, such nitrogen is converted to nitrous oxide which has been known to persist in the atmosphere for more than a century and have three hundred times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. Nitrogen fertilizer is known to contribute to one-third of the emissions produced by the agrarian sector. Today GM crops have been developed that use nitrogen more efficiently and thus require no such polluting chemicals.
As climate change creates havoc by irreparably damaging the climatic conditions and the ecosystem that plants and livestock are adapted to, Nepali farmers – who are already poor with low adaptive capacity – are increasingly subjected to lower crop yields, even complete crop failures and increasing livestock mortality. Climate change has also been correlated with an increase in resistant weeds and pests and increase in the incidence of diseases in plants. This has increased food insecurity and exacerbated poor nutrition among the poorest of people in the present and this trend is likely to get worse in the future.
However, scientists have increased the resiliency of many crops so that they are able to handle the stress imposed by water scarcity or increasing attacks of insects and weeds. Biotech companies are still field-testing strains of crops that are able to use water more efficiently so that no irrigation is required. Some GM crops also boast drought tolerance: such plants are able to allocate enough energy for growth and seed production even when they are under tremendous abiotic stress.
Climate change has also been documented to exacerbate problems of pests like insects and weeds for various crop species. Designer plants like Bt cotton – which have been grown by both of our neighbors for many years now – have been used to kill insects by themselves. Such GM crops have also reduced the need for pesticides by a significant amount. Farmers have reported increased yields for Bt crops than conventional ones: one study shows that the average gain was as much as 9.2 quintals per hectare.
In 2014, in response to Monsato’s presence in Nepal, the Supreme Court temporarily banned the import of GM seeds into Nepal. For the time being, this may have been a smart move for us as countries figure out the social, moral and environmental dimensions of the issues and come up with concrete, universal laws to deal with such contentious disputes. However, Nepal should not completely bow out of any of such discussions and should take an active interest, at the very least as an observer.
Given our geostrategic position between two influential neighbors that have embraced the GMO trend in a wholesome manner and given future population growth projections, it is impossible for Nepal to completely wash its hands off of the subject matter altogether. According to Hari Krishna Saiju, an expert in the field of plant biotechnology, completely swearing off GMOs is not the answer as it is not justifiable or even sustainable in the long term. “The porous borders between India and Nepal will not allow GM crops to be contained only in the Indian sides. When struggling Nepali farmers catch on that GM crops are more profitable and less energy intensive, they will start dabbling in the area,” he said.
The introduction of GM crops in Nepal should be a well thought out and well-reasoned process with zero importance given to unwarranted fear-mongering. Instead of signing off on the technology completely today, Nepal should take the next few years to figure out ways around some of the legitimate social and economic concerns posed by this promising technology in the world today.
sneha.pandey@hotmail.com
Related story
It’s never too late
