Usability of genetically modified plants based on empirical research

In present genetically modified organisms (GMOs) constitutes a highly controversial procedure, and it is very difficult to restrain its propagation. There are quite a few questions that need to be addressed to take a stand on the subject. Should we play a role in this rapid development or stay in the background? Can this instant solution offer any advantage? Should we get on the GMO “train”? We conducted a survey in Hungary, in Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County to show how farmers perceive increased crop yields and cultivation safety of GMO crops. Are GMO crops rejected or considered for cultivation, such as for fuel production? Are farmers aware that direct and indirect effects of GMOs can endanger biodiversity? Is there any reason why one should use genetically modified products instead of naturally grown plants? The motivation may be to produce energy sources, to obtain biomass and biofuels, and possibly to create and preserve more jobs at the national and regional levels. It is still difficult to evaluate how GMO is compatible with environmental protection and sustainable economic development.

Not the Same Old Chestnut

We argue that the wild release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be justified as a way of preserving species and ecosystems. We look at the case of a genetically modified American chestnut (Castanea dentata) that is currently undergoing regulatory review. Because American chestnuts are functionally extinct, a genetically modified replacement has significant conservation value. In addition, many of the arguments used against GMOs, especially GMO crops, do not hold for American chestnut trees. Finally, we show how GMOs such as the American chestnut support a reorientation of conservation values away from restoration as it has historically been interpreted, and toward an alternative framework known as rewilding.

THE FAILURES OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOS): RESISTANCE, REGULATION, AND REJECTION

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been contentious for more than three decades. Only 24 countries grow GMOs commercially. Four countries (USA, Canada, Brazil and Argentina) account for 85% of the global GMO hectares. Four crops (soy, corn, cotton and canola) account for 99% of GM hectares. Despite the veneer of social validity that regulators cast, the GMO sector has failed to gain a social licence. Where GM labelling is required, food manufacturers avoid GM ingredients. GMOs have failed to gain price parity with their non-GM counterparts, and they attract price penalties. Segregation of GMOs and non-GMOs has failed (with a tolerance of 0.9% GM contamination in so-called non-GM canola). GM has failed the coexistence test with a GMO growers contaminating neighbouring farms. GMOs are a biosecurity fail, with test plots of GM canola planted in the late 1990s still monitored two decades later for rogue canola plants. Most GMO crops are glyphosate dependent. Glyphosate is globally subject to massive litigation claims and awards, and is implicated in the causation of multiple cancers. Mechanisms for compensating farms contaminated by GMOs are lacking. The GMO industry has taken no responsibility for contaminations. GMOs are a threat to the organic sector and the maintenance of certification and price premiums. Most countries (88%) do not grow GMO crops. This paper considers the global experience of GMOs and the Australian experience as a microcosm of the global experience and as a case study.

Determinants of Comparative Advantage in GMO Intensive Industries

This paper examines the supply-side determinants of international trade in crops that are intensive in genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The theoretical framework is a variant of the Heckscher–Ohlin model, which we estimate using cross-country data for 1995 and 2010 to examine soybeans, maize, and cotton trade. The data include measures of country land endowments, which we disaggregate into GMO and non-GMO components, as well as recently released measures of GMO regulations. Findings show land endowments are a primary source of comparative advantage in GMO intensive industries before and after the advent of GMOs. Further, an increase in a country's allocation of land to GMO crops has a positive effect on her net exports in GMO intensive industries. This positive effect occurs both across countries and time. Finally, a country's GMO regulations have a negligible effect as a supply-side determinant of comparative advantage. However, a country's decision about whether to adopt GMO technologies does matter to trade. These findings are robust with respect to a variety of considerations.