GM maize: the solution to food insecurity in Kenya

GM maize are strains that have been engineered to express traits such as pest-resistance, pesticide-resistance among others. Current GM maize is produced through the insertion of foreign genetic material into the maize genome with the help of bacteria. New methods of generating genetically engineered (GE) foods such as the use of CRISPR/Cas9 are emerging and continually being tested. The technology of GM maize production has been optimized over the years and the resulting products tested for safety. For more than 20 years, GM maize has been produced and commercialized in different parts of the world constituting over 32% of global corn production. Agronomic, environmental, and toxicological safety of GM maize has been conducted continuously over the years. It has been found that GM maize outperformed non-GM in grain yield, has a lower concentration of mycotoxins, fumonisin, and trichothecenes, and do not affect non-target organisms while being effective against target organism (stalk borer). GM maize is therefore cheaper to the consumer because of the increased yield and reduced pesticide use. There has not been any evidence of the harmful effect of the consumption of GM maize. While the GM concerns that arise are genuine, they have been addressed continuously over the last 20 years – GM is safe for consumption, environmentally friendly, and more profitable to farmers.

In this regard, the debate on such GM concerns at the moment is retrogressive, and the focus should be on the introduction of the product based on the needs analysis. Covid19 vaccine (basically a portion of the viral genome), which was produced within months received much acceptance and support from even the political class because it was equally needed. Hunger, unlike Covid19 disease, affects mostly low-income earners thus a non-priority to most of those involved in decision-making. Similar to how the vaccine was administered voluntarily, the same approach should apply to GM maize introduction.

 

Should GM maize and associated products be labeled to give consumers a choice?

 

There are two ways regulators can verify claims that a food is or is not genetically engineered. First, content-based verification requires testing foods for the physical presence of foreign DNA or protein. A current application of this type of procedure is the analysis and labeling of the vitamin content of foods. As the number of transgenes in commercialized crops increases, the techniques for detecting an array of different transgenes have become more sophisticated. Secondly, process-based verification entails detailed record-keeping of seed source, field location, harvest, transport, and storage. This is similar to the procedure used to certify shade-grown coffee or organic foods.

Bills requiring mandatory labeling have been introduced in various countries such as the US. However, labeling is complicated and may be counterproductive, resulting in GM foods that are more expensive than non-GM counterparts. Those advocating for labeling opine that consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised. Mandatory labeling will allow consumers to identify and steer clear of food products that they don’t like for religious or ethical reasons. However, a counterargument is that labels on GM food imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GE and conventional foods have been detected. If a nutritional or allergenic difference were found in GE food, regulatory authorities already require a label to that effect. Furthermore, labeling GE foods to fulfill the desires of some consumers would impose a cost on all consumers. Experience with mandatory labeling in the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand has not resulted in consumer choice. Rather, retailers have eliminated GE products from their shelves due to perceived consumer aversion to GM products. Moreover, consumers who want to buy non-GM foods already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GM ingredients. On the same note, consumers who want to avoid animal products need not worry about GM foods. No GM products currently on the market or under review contain animal genes (However, there is no guarantee that this will not happen in the future).

The economic impact of labeling cannot be overlooked. The cost of labeling involves far more than the paper and ink to print the actual label. Accurate labeling requires a comprehensive identity preservation system that extends from the farmer to the elevator, to grain processor, to food manufacturer, and to the retailer. Either testing or detailed record-keeping needs to be done at various steps along the food supply chain. Estimates of the costs of mandatory labeling vary from a few dollars per person per year to 10 percent of a consumer’s food bill. Consumer willingness to pay for GM labeling information varies widely according to several surveys. Another potential economic impact for certain food manufacturers is that some consumers may avoid foods labeled as containing GE ingredients.

The government and other stakeholders should focus on the economic implications of GM without compromising on the need to provide food to those who are in dire need. Various studies have shown that shoppers are not willing to pay a premium for such labeling. Women appeared to favor mandatory labeling more than men, younger consumers are less likely to support mandatory labeling, while those who considered themselves better informed about biotechnology were less concerned that GE foods be labeled. Such evidence shows that public education is necessary as we seek to transform agriculture through technology to avert climate change as we attain food security.

References

Ala-Kokko, K., Lanier Nalley, L., Shew, A. M., Tack, J. B., Chaminuka, P., Matlock, M. D., & D’Haese, M. (2021). Economic and ecosystem impacts of GM maize in South Africa. Global Food Security, 29, 100544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100544

Gruere, G.P. & Rao, S. R. (2007). A review of international labeling policies of genetically modified food to evaluate India’s propose rule. AgBioForum, 10(1).

Hansen, M. (2001). Genetically engineered food: Make sure it’s safe and label it. In G.C. Nelson (ed.) Genetically modified organisms in agriculture. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 239-255.

Klümper, W., & Qaim, M. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e111629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Raab, C. & Grobe, D. (2003). Labeling genetically engineered food: The consumer’s right to know? AgBio Forum; 6(4).

Shew, A. M., Tack, J. B., Nalley, L. L., Chaminuka, P., & Maali, S. (2021). Yield gains larger in GM maize for human consumption than livestock feed in South Africa. Nature Food, 2(2), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00231-x

Yassitepe, J. E. de C. T., da Silva, V. C. H., Hernandes-Lopes, J., Dante, R. A., Gerhardt, I. R., Fernandes, F. R., da Silva, P. A., Vieira, L. R., Bonatti, V., & Arruda, P. (2021). Maize Transformation: From Plant Material to the Release of Genetically Modified and Edited Varieties. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 766702. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.766702