Who is the African Farmer? The Importance of Actor Representations in the Debate About Biotechnology Crops in Africa

The discussion about the impact of agricultural biotechnology on Africa is deeply divided and contains widely diverging claims about the impact of biotechnology on African farmers. Building upon literature on the ‘good farmer’ that highlights that farmers identities are an important factor in explaining the success or failure of agricultural change, we argue that the identity of the farmer is an undervalued yet crucial aspect for understanding the debate about the impact of agricultural biotechnology on African farmers. In this article we therefore investigate what farmers’ identities are implicated in the arguments about the impact of biotechnology on African farmers. We aim to identify the main fault lines in different accounts of the African biotechnology farmer by analysing the identities ascribed to them in two prominent cases of controversy: the debates at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and the discussion about the impact of biotechnology on smallholder farmers in the Makhathini flats in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. Our findings demonstrate that arguments about biotechnology are informed by diverging conceptions of who the African farmer is, what is important for the African farmer, and what role the African farmer has in relation to agricultural biotechnology. These findings remain relevant for current discussions on gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas. Openly discussing these different views on the identity of smallholder farmers is crucial for moving forward in the biotechnology controversy and can inform future attempts to elicit the farmer’s voice.

Undergraduate Students Attitudes toward Biotechnology Crop

Crop biotechnology is not yet entirely accepted by all of the countries, even though biotechnology can give a lot of benefits in production. This research aims to explain undergraduate students attitudes toward crop biotechnology and to analyse factors affecting their attitudes toward crop biotechnology. This research is carried out at the University of Jember campus with a disproportionate random sampling of 80 respondents consisting of 40 students from the Faculty of Agriculture and 40 students from other faculties. The data analysis technique is logistic regression. The result of this research showed that most of the undergraduate students (61,25%) are agree toward biotechnology crops. While factors that affected their attitudes toward biotechnology crops are information, sex, and knowledge.

Contributions of biotechnology to meeting future food and environmental security needs

Biotechnology, including genetic modifications, can play a vital role in helping to meet future food and environmental security needs for our growing population. The nature and use of biotechnology crops are described and related to aspects of food security. Biotechnological applications for food and animal feed are described, together with trends on global adoption of these crops. The benefits of biotechnology crops through increased yield, reduced pesticide use and decreased environmental damage are discussed. Examples of biotechnology crops which do not involve genetic modification are also described. Applications of biotechnology to drought and salt tolerance, and biofortification in which micronutrient content is enhanced are discussed. Emergent technologies such as RNA spraying technology, use of genome editing in agriculture and future targets for improved food and environmental security are considered.

Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise and Prospects of Genetically Modified Crops

For millennia, humans have modified plant genes in order to develop crops best suited for food, fiber, feed, and energy production. Conventional plant breeding remains inherently random and slow, constrained by the availability of desirable traits in closely related plant species. In contrast, agricultural biotechnology employs the modern tools of genetic engineering to reduce uncertainty and breeding time and to transfer traits from more distantly related plants. Critics express concerns that the technology imposes negative environmental effects and jeopardizes the health of those who consume the “frankenfoods.” Supporters emphasize potential gains from boosting output and lowering food prices for consumers. They argue that such gains are achieved contemporaneous with the adoption of farming practices that lower agrochemical use and lessen soil. The extensive experience with agricultural biotechnology since 1996 provides ample evidence with which to test the claims of supporters and opponents and to evaluate the prospects of genetic crop engineering. In this paper, we begin with an overview of the adoption of the first generation of agricultural biotechnology crops. We then look at the evidence on the effects of these crops: on output and prices, on the environment, and on consumer health. Finally, we consider intellectual property issues surrounding this new technology.

Do Refuge Requirements for Biotechnology Crops Promote Economic Efficiency? Some Evidence for Bt Cotton

We examine producer behavior, resistance evolution, and returns under alternative refuge requirements in an eastern North Carolina region with multiple corn, cotton, and soybean fields infested by a mobile pest. Returns are highest, pyrethroid sprays occur least frequently, and pyrethroid resistance evolution is delayed most effectively with no refuge requirement. Complying with the current 20% refuge requirement costs the producer $8.67 per cotton acre, or $34.21 per non-transgenic insecticidal (Bt) cotton acre. Returns are highest under each refuge requirement when one-toxin Bt cotton is not phased out; however, removal of the technology at the earliest phase-out date minimizes regional pyrethroid sprays.