IN-DEPTH: Questions About Genetically Modified Crops as Agriculture’s ‘Silver Bullet’ Solution to Climate Change

The argument for using genetically modified crops to fight climate change unravels amid contradictory evidence from people working with organic food and plants.

A farmer plants corn in the Marvin Chapel field in Mount Airy, Md., on May 19, 2020. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

As government officials continue pressuring the world’s farmers to modify their methods to accommodate climate change concerns, businesses and academics are pushing genetically modified crops as an agricultural solution to climate change.

Since 2019, there’s been a palpable shift in the language surrounding genetically modified (GM) crops. Academic periodicals, research studies, and companies investing in the crops claim that they are more environmentally friendly than their organic counterparts.

“Agricultural land use is a key component in both sides of the net-zero equation ... crops can be engineered to more efficiently capture carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen or store it in the soil,” the World Economic Forum stated on its website.

Because of the intensity of drought conditions affecting key farming regions worldwide and the controversy over fertilizer usage and its impact on climate concerns, some governments with long-standing bans on GM crops are reconsidering their position.

In July, the European Commission tested the waters on a rules revision for using genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

One member said loosening the region’s famously strict “no GMO” policies to include some plants bred with more updated gene-editing technology would give struggling farmers more resilient crops.

Presently, 26 countries have either partially or entirely banned GMOs in agriculture.

Many are European nations, including France, Germany, and Italy.

Other countries with bans on GM crops include India, Russia, and China. An additional 60 nations have also imposed “significant restrictions” on GMO use, according to a recent analysis published in the journal GM Crops & Food.

A man tests samples of soybean and corn meal used to feed chickens at the Alifel factory laboratory in Loue, France, on Feb. 3, 2017. Jean-Francois Monier/AFP/Getty Images

The same study noted a “lack of trust and confidence by the public in regulatory processes behind GMOs.”

But supporters of organic agriculture are speaking up amid a growing body of evidence that challenges GM crop advocates’ claims regarding its ability to address climate concerns.

“We must be cautious not to view GM crops as a silver bullet for addressing all aspects of agriculture’s impact on climate change,” Zahid Adnan told The Epoch Times.

Mr. Adnan is the founder of The Plant Bible and advocates for organic farming and gardening practices. He believes organic farming plays a crucial role in addressing climate concerns. These aspects include building healthy soils, promoting biodiversity, and minimizing external inputs.

Reservations aside, GM crops are now part of the climate change conversation.

High and Dry

One of the alleged selling points for increased GM crop production is that modified plants can be engineered to require less water.

While these assertions have floated around the scientific community for a decade, drought conditions in multiple growing regions over the past couple of years have put these claims to the test.

Some estimates say GM crops require up to 25 percent less water to thrive. At a glance, this is great news. Especially for drought-affected staple foods such as corn and soy.

There’s just one problem. So far, GM crops are being crushed by drought just as hard as their organic counterparts.

Approximately 94 percent of soybeans and 92 percent of corn planted in the United States are GM crops.

Prolonged dry conditions are taking a toll on both of these sectors.

In January, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) lowered its 2022 corn estimates by nearly a quarter million bushels and was 9 percent less than 2021. It was reportedly the lowest corn estimate since 2012.

Transgenic soy plants are seen in a field near Santa Fe city, some 500 km northwest of Buenos Aires, Argentina, on April 10, 2012. Juan Mabromata/AFP/Getty Images

What began as an optimistic outlook for 2022’s soy harvest ended up 4 percent lower than the previous year.

But dismal drought predictions for the most widely planted GM crops don’t stop there.

June witnessed 58 percent of the American Midwest struggling with moderate or worse drought conditions.

Consequently, the USDA said 64 percent of the area’s corn production and 57 percent of soy have been affected.

Moreover, it’s not just a United States phenomenon. Gene-edited crops struggle to prove their drought tolerance in other major farming nations.

In Argentina, GM crops make up 63 percent of total planting. Concurrently, the South American agricultural giant is also witnessing their GM corn and soy production wither beneath a historic drought.

As a result, the USDA slashed Argentina’s corn and soy projections in March. Estimates for soy were cut by 20 percent, representing the most significant monthly hit to the nation’s soybeans in more than 10 years.

Curiously enough, Argentina accounts for 13 percent of the world’s total GM crops.

Mr. Adnan said that on the other end of the spectrum, organic crops and agricultural practices use time-tested methods of conserving water. No need to grab DNA by the reins.

“Organic practices such as mulching and efficient irrigation techniques contribute to water conservation, a vital concern in regions facing water scarcity due to climate change.”

Corporate Rebranding

“A lot of research suggests that GM crops can be engineered to use less water and emit fewer greenhouse gases than conventional crops,” Kafi Sajjad told The Epoch Times.

“However, it is important to note that not all GM crops are created equal.”

Mr. Sajjad works in research at Organic Foods Corner. He said that not every GM crop can deliver on the rapidly growing list of climate-friendly promises.

“Some GM crops have been designed to withstand herbicides, while others have been designed to resist pests. The environmental impact of GM crops will vary depending on the specific trait that has been engineered.”

He also said he believes that organic crops offer as many, if not more, environmentally friendly benefits.

“Organic crops are grown without the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, which can pollute waterways and harm wildlife. Additionally, organic crops can help to improve soil health, which helps to sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

But some GM crop supporters claim that GMOs need less fertilizer and chemicals than organic crops.

Traditionally, organic crops aren’t grown with pesticides or synthetic fertilizers—in the worst-case scenario, they use small amounts of these chemicals. In fact, most synthetic pesticides and fertilizers aren’t allowed on any crop or product bearing the coveted USDA organic seal.

Corporate agricultural and genetic science groups argue that a lot of the bad reputation surrounding GMOs in farming stems from a misconception of the types of chemicals used on crops.

This brings to mind the whole Monsanto-Roundup debacle, which began in 1996.

Monsanto, which is now defunct, released a GM soybean resistant to the purported cancer-causing chemical known as glyphosate.

It was a prominent ingredient found in the company’s infamous Roundup herbicide. Monsanto released its GM glyphosate-resistant corn just a few years later.

Over the span of decades, farmers used Roundup in their fields, particularly with GM crops.

Monsanto Co's Roundup is shown for sale in Encinitas, California, June 26, 2017. Mike Blake/Reuters

In 2020, two years after Bayer purchased Monsanto, the pharmaceutical giant was forced to settle more than 100,000 cancer litigation suits caused by Roundup exposure at almost $11 billion.

Monsanto once claimed that Roundup was “safer than table salt.”

Follow the Money

That cuts to the core of the counterargument many have pointed out: Corporate GM crop engineers knowingly sold a chemical linked to cancer for decades. So how is the public expected to trust other players in big agriculture?

Well, they don’t have to trust any other players, because Bayer is one of the largest GM seed sellers in the world.

Other major gene-edited seed players include Corteva and Syngenta. People may know the former as the famous chemical giant DuPont, and the latter is part of the Chinese state-owned company ChemChina.

Bayer and Corteva alone dominate around 40 percent of the world’s seed market.

“It is important to understand the broader context and long-term effects of relying on these [GM] crops to address agriculture’s role in climate change,” Robert Oates told The Epoch Times.

Mr. Oates is the managing director of Arbtech, a leading ecological and arboricultural consultant in the United Kingdom. He said that working with organics has taught him valuable lessons in sustainable agriculture.

Chief among these is the need for what he called a “complete strategy” that considers factors such as biodiversity and soil health.

Recent studies have shown that healthy soil is paramount to capturing carbon.

“Among other benefits, it has been shown that organic farming methods, which emphasize natural processes and regionally appropriate crop kinds, raise soil carbon, decrease erosion, and boost pollinator populations,” Mr. Oates said.

So, if traditional organics use little to no fertilizer or other chemicals and GM crops have proven themselves unable to tackle the drought challenge, the question becomes: What are the advantages of using GM crops?

To answer this, some say you need to follow the money. There are links between GM crop research demonstrating alleged climate-friendly traits and major GM seed investors.

An example of this is the Alliance for Science. The foundation has published articles since 2020 touting GM crops as having “significant environmental benefits” regarding climate concerns.

The primary sponsor of the organization is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a significant investor in GM crops. In 2010, the foundation came under fire for its investments in Monsanto.

It conjures images of old television and magazine ads from the first half of the 20th century, featuring doctors promoting their favorite cigarette brands.

It’s an impossible marketing campaign by today’s standards. However, big tobacco suppressed independent science for years that conclusively linked smoking cigarettes with cancer.

Meanwhile, some supporters of organic crops have said that organic crops and GMOs don’t have to be grown to the exclusion of the other.

“The debate between organic and GM crops regarding their impact on climate change is not a simple dichotomy,” Mr. Adnan said.

He added both approaches have merits and can contribute to sustainable agriculture, but it’s hard to argue with the natural path.

“The principles underlying organic farming align well with the goals of climate change mitigation and adaptation. As horticulturists, our role is to explore innovative ways to integrate the strengths of various agricultural methods to create a more resilient and sustainable food system for the future.”