By Carolyn Chelius, BA candidate, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wellesley College, and 2016 Next Generation Delegate 

The 2016 Global Food Security Symposium highlighted a number of stories, from Dr. Thomas Reardon’s firsthand discussion of the “quiet revolution” of African smallholder farmers to Kavita Shukla’s entrepreneurial journey creating FreshPaper. The conversations I found most intriguing, however, were the ones I participated in, with my fellow Next Generation Delegates. Each delegate brought a different perspective to the discussion, with backgrounds from crop science to public health. As an environmental and economics student at Wellesley College with a particular focus on genetically modified (GM) crops, I especially appreciated the other delegates’ contributions to discussions about my area of study. GM crops pose potential solutions to problems with our current food system, but—as other delegates so aptly pointed out—they are also rife with their own problems.

GM crops are crops that have the genetic material of one organism inserted into the genes of another. They allow for the expression of traits that aren’t easily attainable through conventional breeding, and have largely increased crop yields and reduced global pesticide use. Currently, the majority of GM crops on the global market are insect-resistant, and herbicide-resistant corn, soybeans, and cotton, but more recently, biotechnology research has focused on developing a “next generation” of GM crops that includes traits like heat-tolerance and increased nutrients—traits that have the potential to combat some of the major issues facing our food system. For example, drought-resistant maize could fare better in the face of climate change; iron-enriched rice could help combat anemia. However, there are several barriers to the commercialization of GM crops—chief among them consumer acceptance.

Kara Bresnahan, an MPH student from University of California, Berkeley, brought up the importance of cultural adoption of nutrient-enhanced crops. She has worked closely with farmers abroad, specifically with the adoption of vitamin-A enhanced crops. Programs like Harvest Plus biofortify staple crops in developing countries to combat micronutrient deficiencies. The solution seems simple—replacing a crop that is already engrained in the diet of a particular population with a vitamin-enhanced variety—but there are many complications. Kara brought up the significance of the difference in color—that an orange biofortified potato appears unfamiliar and undesirable to consumers used to a white variety. She also stressed the importance of education—that programs like Harvest Plus must invest to teach farmers about the significance of biofortified crops, the logistics of planting them, and must continue to educate and encourage sustained application of the crop. (It is important to mention, too, that biofortified crops can be bred through conventional, as well as GM methods.)

Vidya Vemireddy, a PhD student at Cornell studying Applied Economics and Management, agreed with the importance of cultural significance in diet, and went further to challenge the definition of nutrition. Drawing on her own experiences with India, she argued that history and tradition can shape metabolism, and that working to alter and diversify diet may not be desirable. Johanna Andrews, a nutrition science and policy PhD student at Tufts, agreed with Vidya’s point, but pushed back, claiming nutrition science is incredibly complex, and that nutritionists are still trying to determine what a healthy diet actually is.

Kara, Vidya, and Johanna’s points echo only a few of the concerns with the adoption of GM crops. In addition to cultural significance, GM crops should be assessed carefully for potential risks to the environment and human health. While the technology has the potential to decrease the prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies, and maintain (or even increase) crop yields in the face of adverse climate and environmental conditions, the success of GM crop varieties at achieving these aims will depend entirely on consumers’ willingness to adopt them.
 

Read previous posts in the Next Generation Delegation 2016 Commentary Series:

• Food Safety: An Opportunity Often Overlooked when Planning How to Feed Our Burgeoning Population 
• Investing in Younger Generations Is Key to Solving World Hunger by 2050 
• Made in _______: Distant Food Demand Lead to Local Water Issues 
• Reevaluating the Agricultural Development Agenda
• Promoting Food Security While Avoiding the Nutrition Transition