Can Use of Genetically Engineered Crops or Organic Farming Lead to More Sustainable Agricultural Production Systems?

Sustainability has no single meaning, but one accepted definition is to meet the basic needs of today’s inhabitants while preserving resources to enable future generations to flourish. Sustainability has become a goal of the United Nations’ Development Group’s Millennium project, “to ‘Ensure Environmental Sustainability’ by integrating principles of sustainable development into a country’s policies and programs to reverse the loss of environmental resources” (1). Although the need for sustainable agricultural systems is now widely accepted, the manner in which to achieve them is not universal and even the precise goals are not well defined.

The prevailing agricultural system in the United States, so-called conventional farming, has led to impressive gains in productivity and efficiency. Some estimates are that between 70 and 90% of recent increases in food production resulted from changes in conventional agricultural practices rather than cultivation acreage increases (2). This high production does have negative environmental impacts, as well as sizeable consumption of fossil fuels, unsustainable rates of water use and topsoil loss, and contributions to environmental degradation, e.g., air pollution, soil erosion, reduced biodiversity, pest resistance, pollution of lakes and streams, and overuse of surface and ground water (3).

To achieve agricultural sustainability, causes and cures for these problems must be addressed through all possible means. Numerous agricultural practices or methods, such as integrated pest management (IPM), biological control, organic methods, and use of GE plants, coupled with selected conventional agricultural methods, can play important roles in future sustainable agricultural practices. For example, practitioners of integrated pest management use comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interactions with the environment, in combination with available pest control methods, to manage pest damage with the least possible hazard to people, property, and the environment (4). Biological control involves the use of a specific living organism to control a particular pest and cause the least harm to beneficial insects (5). USDA APHIS, for example, recently released a finding of no significant impact relative to the environmental release of gall wasp (Aulacidea acroptilonica) for biological control of Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) (6). Biological control can be a part of an IPM strategy and neither biological control nor IPM specifically excludes the use of GE organisms.

Organic production (see “What Happens When Pollen Moves from Genetically Engineered Crops to Organic Crops?“) relies on practices, such as cultural and biological pest management, that can include IPM and biological control but excludes the use of synthetic chemicals and GE organisms (7). The use of GE organisms can also contribute to sustainable practices by augmenting and replacing certain conventional practices. For example, plants can be created that increase water use (8) and fertilizer (9) efficiencies, that remediate soil contaminants (10), increase no-till or low-till practices (11) to help reduce greenhouse gases (12), and produce higher yields without increasing land usage, particularly in developing countries (13, 14). Although GE plants can contribute to a more sustainable agriculture, their development and availability do not ensure positive contributions. That depends on how they are deployed and whether their use results in changes in farming practices that increase sustainability. To achieve true sustainability agriculture must use the best of all practices.

References:

1. UNMillenn. Proj. 2006. Goals, targets and indicators. Last accessed 2020-1-27. PDF

2. Gold MV. 1999. Sustainable agriculture: Definitions and terms. Spec. Ref. Briefs Ser. No. SRB 99-02. http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902.shtml. Last accessed 2011-12-12. PDF

3. Horrigan L, Lawrence RS,Walker P. 2002. How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ. Health Perspect. 110:445–56

4. Environ. Prot. Agency (EPA). 2008. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/ipm.htm. Last accessed 2011-12-12. PDF

5. N.C. State Univ. Biol. Control Inf. Cent. 2008. Biological pest control: An introduction. http://cipm.ncsu.edu/ent/biocontrol/intro.htm. Last accessed 2011-12-12. PDF

6. Anim. Plant Health Insp. Serv., USDA. 2008. Control of Russian Knapweed; availability of an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Fed. Regist. 73:165

7. USDA Econ. Res. Serv. 2008. Briefing rooms: Organic agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Organic/. Last accessed 2011-12-12. PDF

8. Rivero RM, Kojima M, Gepstein A, Sakakibara H, Mittler R, et al. 2007. Delayed leaf senescence induces extreme drought tolerance in a flowering plant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:19631–36

9. Shrawat AK, Carroll RT, DePauw M, Taylor GJ, Good AG. 2008. Genetic engineering of improved nitrogen use efficiency in rice by the tissue-specific expression of alanines aminotransferase. Plant Biotechnol. J. 6:722–32

10. LeDuc DL, AbdelSamie M, Móntes-Bayon M, Wu CP, Reisinger SJ, Terry N. 2006. Overexpressing both ATP sulfurylase and selenocysteine methyltransferase enhances selenium phytoremediation traits in Indian mustard. Environ. Pollut. 144:70–76

11. Stewart CN. 2004. Genetically Engineered Planet: Environmental Impacts of Genetically Engineered Plants. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

12. Durham S. 2005. United States-Brazil collaboration heats up. Agric. Res. 53:14–15

13. Bennett R, Kambhampati U, Morse S, Ismael Y. 2006. Farm-level economic performance of GM cotton in Maharashtra India. Rev. Agric. Econ. 28:59–71

14. Qaim M, Zilberman D. 2003. Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science 299:900–2

Updated 2/16/12