Full Text
The FAO defines food security as ”all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2006). Achieving a secure food supply requires that at least four factors be met: i) availability of sufficient food amount with proper quality; ii) access to a nutritious diet by entire populations; iii) utilization of food for an adequate and healthy diet which includes provisioning of clean water, hygiene, and health care to reach alimentary well‐being with all physiological necessities; iv) continuity which means stable access to food and should not lose this access as a consequence of any shocks or events. Some of these factors such as food access and/or stability are often associated with outbreaks of social unrest or more severe forms of conflict (political, ethnic, religious, and climate). Brinkman (2011) clearly presented how food insecurity can become a “threat and multiplier for violent conflict”, especially so “when caused by higher food prices, heightens the risk of democratic breakdown, civil conflict, protest, rioting, and communal conflict.” More exactly, according to the GRFS 2018 (Global Report on Food Crises, 2018) report, about 108 million people faced such crisis‐level food insecurity in 2016 requiring urgent humanitarian help, which is 80 million more than in the previous years. The most affected countries are Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea‐Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Lebanon prompted by influx of Syrian, Liberia, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraina, and Yemen, plus the Lake Chad Basin refugees (GRFC, 2018).
Economically developed countries seem to be ready to relocate important production lines to their home country (Elliott, 2020). The intertwined and interdependent global economic system has shown its weaknesses and fragility, and nation‐states have realized the need to rethink their dependencies in many areas of economic life. Taking into the consideration the new forecasts of the World Bank, the FAO and other international organizations, the food supply chain should be one of the areas worth reconsidering (Cullen, 2020; Elliott, 2020). Although none of the organizations’ analyzes make any reference to GM crops as an important option for a higher level of self‐sufficiency, that could be considered one of the important possibilities of the future. The more politically fragile a state is, the more likely that entire populations must rely on food imports, making them vulnerable to food price instability (Food Insecurity and the Conflict Trap, 2011). Almost all of these countries have agriculture‐based economies in WDR (World Development Report made by World Bank) terms, mostly in Sub‐Saharan Africa. Altogether, it can also be seen that in many developing countries the national income (based mostly on agriculture ) is negatively correlated with the incidence of violent conflict (Blattman and Miguel, 2010; FAO, 2018). These strong correlations therefore clearly show that agricultural incomes are not only related to the incidence of conflict but also to various pillars of food security (FAO, 2018). Altogether, it can be clearly stated that many agriculturally dependent countries are also hosts of durable violent conflicts, which makes acceptable the idea that direct link between food insecurity and political conflict exists (Wischnath & Buhaug, 2014).
Although food aid is widely distributed and is considered by several international agencies as one of the most effective ways to control food insecurity, the strategy has often been criticized because it has some questionable effects on local economies, that is, lowering domestic food prices and its predictability or undermining encouragements for local food productions. This, in turn, can contribute to delaying the recovery of rural livelihoods when emergencies subside. Unintended costs can also include induced changes in recipients’ food consumption and natural use patterns, distortion of private social safety nets, and trade displacement (Barrett & Maxwell, 2005; Teodosijevic, 2003). In sub‐Saharan Africa alone food aid rose from an average of 1 million metric tons/year in the 1970s to more than 3.3 million metric tons/year in the 1990s (Kuhlgatz et al., 2010). Food aid in general can give the impression that food‐donors are helping developing countries to alleviate massive starvation of high populations, infection diseases occurring, because of malnutrition, but also to address the fundamental causes of the problem itself (Barrett & Maxwell, 2005). For example, the World Food Program (WFP) estimated that nonviolent deaths in the context of major emergencies decreased with 40% between 1993 and 2003, compared with the previous years (WFP, 2019).
Available data of 76 countries were collected, representing 80% of world population (Figure 1). Rate of undernutrition, rate of peace, and distribution of GM crops data (only GM crops cultivation approval data) was collected from FAO, GPI, and ISAAA stats. The reason of using these datasets was the following: (i) First the country‐based data and governmental decisions that involve undernutrition, rate of peace, and GM crop cultivation approvals were searched using a newly developed software. Laws (GM crop data especially) that met the following criteria were considered: (1) they were passed by the counties committees (i.e. EU Countries, the United States Congress, the Indian and Brazil Federal Governments, Chinese Congress, other country decision‐making committees); and (2) pertain to the regulation of the interaction of humans with mentioned factors and with direct or indirect reference to political and food conflict and the effects thereof. (ii) Particular country regulations (i.e. in EU Countries) by its responsible ministries were separately searched and the relevant laws duly selected. (iii) To link drivers of GM crop approval, political conflict, and rate of undernutrition were considered, namely social, economic, and regulatory factors. All collected data source was carefully checked, and because the waste‐majority were found in FAO, GPI, and ISAAA stats, these were used for any further analyses. More precisely, data according to FAO 2017 reports of high undernutrition of at least 20% of country populations, data according Global Peace Index (GPI) 2017 report of low state of peace (only low and very low state of peace) were considered as the most comprehensive data (see descriptions of methodology by Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP)). The next data used for comparison were the GM crops global distribution (only GM crops cultivation approval data) according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri‐biotech Applications (ISAAA) 2017 stats. ISAAA publish free‐access database of biotech/GM crop approvals. Entries in the ISAAA database contain comprehensive data on the approved GM crops. Also contains decision documents of each approving country but also peer‐reviewed scientific articles in GM crop research. According to these, all the data from 2017 were collected according to above‐mentioned factors. Comprehensive data were found about 76 countries (all three factors reported for these countries by FAO, GPI, and ISAAA) (see Figure 1). All three factors were separately added to each country, and these countries marked by different colors or its combinations according to the number (one, two, or three) of factors representing each of them. That is, if one particular country was represented by low state of peace only according to GPI score, was marked with yellow, while the same country faces high, at least 20% rate of undernutrition, gets both scores and marked with yellow and red borders. Thus, different factors and its combinations were marked with different colors in a World map (Figure 1), and the overlaps between factors were again checked by adding two factors (state of peace and GM crop friendly policy) to a search mining software (DataSEE). Correction if necessary were made and final World map for the 76 country depicted. Some countries from Africa and Asia were not included as no comprehensive statistical data by above mentioned organizations were found. From EU and Balkan countries (Former Yugoslavian countries and Albania), only those countries were marked where GM crop friendly policy has been adopted.
Enlarge this image.1 FIGURE. World map of countries with high rate of undernutrition (red bullets), low state of peace (yellow bullets), and distribution of GM crops (green bullets) (only GM crops cultivation approval data) by FAO, GPI, and ISAAA 2017 stats. Bullets with two or three combined colors mean that two or three factors exist together, that is, overlaps high undernutrition and low state of peace. Some countries from Africa and Asia were not included as no comprehensive statistical data were found. From EU and Balkan countries (Former Yugoslavian countries and Albania) only those were marked where GM crops friendly policy has been adopted. No other factors (high population rate affected by undernutrition and low state of peace) can be considered here
To link drivers considering the 76 country‐based food insecurity and its determining factors, four major factors were considered: population growth, climate change, political conflicts, and decrease in agricultural production. These factors, and inside each one, the most influential determinants (i.e. inside agricultural production loss, climate extremes, new pests, limited access to technology, and pest control methods) were considered. These were selected as the most common determinants searched in scientific references published between 2010 and 2018. Data on GM crops regulations were also collected for each 76 country in a same way using again publication and web pages between 2010 and 2018.
To link drivers between factors number of searches that connects factors, that is, climate change to food insecurity or population growth to food insecurity, GM crops with political conflict and GM crops with food insecurity were considered. As 92 papers and 37 web pages between 2010 and 2018 were searched, a strong link was considered between two factors when at least 20 searches (between 2010–18) were found that connects these as strong interrelations in one direction (positive or negative (i.e. paper reported that GM crops have significant positive effect on agricultural production loss, or paper reported that climate change has significant negative effect on food security). These were marked as directions from one factor to another with wide arrows, negative effects with black, positive effects with green arrows (Figure 2). Medium but still influential and relative strong link was considered between two factors when at least 10 searches (between 2010 and 2018) were found that connects these in one direction (positive or negative, see example above) and marked as directions from one factors to another with tine arrows, negative effects with black, positive effects with green (Figure 2). The model fits within the DPSIR (Driving force–Pressure–State–Impact–Response) framework, thereby facilitating the development of relevant social and economic actions and policy actions. Because some factors considered (especially political factors) are highly unpredictable, some of the linkages illustrated should be treated as hypotheses but the high number of fits were found between factors demonstrate that the method used can be considered acceptable from scientific point of view.
Enlarge this image.2 FIGURE. Conceptual model of GM crops effect on food insecurity and its determining factors, focusing only to Central and South America, Africa, and Central, South East Asia. To link drivers, four major factors that influencing food insecurity were considered (population, climate, political, and agricultural factors). Black arrows show directions of these drivers influencing food insecurity for each of the four factors. Green arrows show directions that may alter these factors and mitigate food security problems. Wide arrow represents highly positive and influential directions
A conceptual representation was made by connecting factors and its most influential determinants (Figure 2). Again, the methods used fit within the DPSIR (Driving force–Pressure–State–Impact–Response) framework for reporting on environmental issues, thereby facilitating the development of human‐social actions, policy actions, and large geopolitical factors.
Over the longer term, there is no clear and efficient alternative to food insecurity in most conflict‐prone rural areas without developing the domestic agricultural capacity to produce food. We maintain that this cannot be achieved without new, well‐tested, and no human harmful biotechnological products, as it was also mentioned by others (World Development Report, 2018). This will require global partnerships in science, biotechnology, health research and technology development creating access to millions of smallholder farmers. Evidence from our compilation data from 76 countries suggests that the rate of undernutrition, state of peace, and GM crop cultivation is interrelated (Figure 1). Widespread use of GM crops occurs in 18 countries (the term ‘use’ in this case covers EU Countries too, where almost no cultivation of GM crops events are allowed (except one maize variety the MON 810, other GM crops (cotton, maize, soybean, oilseed rape, etc.) imported as grains or meal, oil, etc. for food, feed, and processing (European & American Views on Genetically Modified Foods, 2019). Surprisingly, low overlaps (3 countries, Bolivia, Pakistan, and Philippines) can be detected between countries that adopt GM crop friendly policy, having in a same time high undernutrition problems, and none of them are in Africa, the most severely affected continent in undernutrition. Again, only four countries (Mexico, Columbia, Egypt, and Burma) overlap GM crops friendly policy and low state of peace, and only one (Egypt) is from Africa. India is the one and only country that adopts GM crop friendly policy (only from the last few years), having in a same time high rate of undernutrition and low state of peace (Figure 1). Altogether, it can be seen that almost no connections between factors causing political instability and GM crop friendly policy exist in developing countries, only India made some efforts from 2016 to adopt GM crops as tool to control undernutrition and consequently increase state of peace.
In the mid‐1990s, development and use of GM plants for agriculture, started to show great promise and became widely approved in the USA and Canada. GM crops also faced considerable resistance in the EU states. Altogether, it can be stated that the EU and Switzerland do not benefit (minimal only) from GM technology in terms of cultivating GM plants but importing grains only. This despite the fact that over the last ten years several studies have demonstrated that the use of well‐tested GM plants in agriculture can help to alleviate food security and with this, quell political insecurity problems (Plumer, 2016). State policy of GM crops includes both national regulations in EU and USA, but also support for global standards in international negotiations such as the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Pollack & Shaffer, 2009). Still, a vast difference in research, production, in‐field testing and even in general consideration about GM crops exists between the most influential regions, EU (adopting a GM critical policy) and USA (adopting a GM friendly policy). The two reflects their different, even opposite attitudes toward GM crops, that affect even consumer preferences (low number of GM products from EU markets, present in USA markets) and government policies (i.e., 6 to 12 month from release request to approval in USA, 3 to 6 year in EU). Differences in GM products regulations are also reflected in negotiations to establish the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (European & American Views on Genetically Modified Foods, 2019). While no or controversy reports about GM crops benefits can be read from EU institutions, the United States National Academy of Sciences Report stated that despite all the argument, the GM crops available to date, tested both under lab and open field conditions ‘are considered just as safe to eat as conventional crops’ (Report, 2019). These crops have proved an economic benefit and even increase in welfare to many US farmers.
Several GM plants can be cultivated under low water regimes and high temperature giving the possibility to improve agriculture in dry regions, which will be crucial in high population countries facing global climate change (Alliance for Science, 2019). The GM crop benefits can be best followed through India and China examples, the most affected countries, facing similar food security challenges with exponential population growth and sever climate change. The high differences are that China has been using GM crops for the last two decades, which resulting that with just 7% of the global arable land, China feeds 22% of the world's population. No such tendency in India can be detected until now; however, fast actions will be necessary because Indian famers currently lose around $5 billion every year to pests and diseases (Karnik, 2016). Until now, only one Bt cotton (Bacillus thuringiensis, bacterial gene introduced that protect cotton events against bollworm) was approved in India in 2002. Since then, this Bt cotton production raised, making India the second‐largest cotton manufacturer in the world after China (Karnik, 2016). Bt coton as a cash crop can provide income to farmers providing them with a means to supplement their diets. This case clearly demonstrated that insect‐resistant GM crops especially have helped reduce applications of insecticide, thereby reducing cultivation costs, increase production and economic income. Experts analyses already reported that adopting GM technology would lead to higher crop productivity in India. This is essential to feeding the expanding Indian population, because today high food supply deficit results higher and higher prices, which makes India to import pulses and even cultivate foreign farmlands to plug the demand‐supply gap (Karnik, 2016). A new form of GM pigeon pea, resistant to pests has been already developed in India by Kiran Sharma at International Crops Research Institute for the Semi‐Arid Tropics. Researches predicting that this new GM crop can increase productivity by 30%, and because this legume is widely used in Indian diet (tur dal) and would substantially increase food supply (Rastello, 2016). Back to China, GM cotton production from 1997 has given farmers in China a 10 percent increase in yield per hectare, along with a 60 percent reduction in the spraying of insecticides on cotton (Paarlberg, 2012). In 2009, China also approved GM rice (resistant to insects pests), the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in 2008 reported that the country food problems needs to be solved urgently "we have to rely on big science and technology measures, rely on biotechnology, rely on GM" (Paarlberg, 2012).
In a last few years, molecular biology made substantial advances, and new gene‐editing techniques, such as CRISPR/Cas9, will soon expand the limits of what we now consider ‘genetic modified’ or ‘engineered’. CRISPR allows already researchers to edit, cut out, and replace genes in any plants more quickly and efficiently than any other technology before (Kofler et al., 2018). These new technology might allow to develop high heat‐ and drought‐tolerant crops, may improve plants nutritional level in a substantial way us, or can be efficient at photosynthesis.
By linking the above mentioned factors and to test the influential effect of GM crops on global food security, we made a comprehensive meta‐analyses (focusing only to Central and South America, Africa and Central, South East Asia) and built up a conceptual model on which the most important drivers (human population growth, climate change, political, and agricultural factors) were identified as most influential factors that determines food insecurity. By adding the GM crop factor in our model, a clearly positive effect was detected; GM crops can substantially alter factors determining food insecurity and even directly mitigate food security problems. According to our analyses, GM crops, especially those with better heat and drought tolerance, higher nutritional value, and resistant to pests, may have even significant alleviating effects on food insecurity and political conflict. The positive and improving effect of GM crops on climate change problems and on population growth (especially by decreasing migrations toward the already overpopulated regions) can also be detected (Figure 2). By removing GM crops from our model, no positive effects on food insecurity were observed; moreover, such highly influential factors than population growth and climate change will even increase food insecurity and political conflicts if no biotechnological researches and GM crops are considered.
According to our analyses, and in concordance with other similar studies, clear connection between food insecurity and political conflicts exists. Now, we can also report that GM crops (including those for industrial scope – Bt cotton as a cash crop providing farmers a means to supplement their diets) can improve food security and in broader way alter political conflicts. The food supply chain, and policy decisions about safe GM crops should be the areas worth reconsidering, clear and constructive reference to safe GM crops as an important option for a higher level of self‐sufficiency has to be made. Let us to cite here Hassam Adamu, Nigeria's former Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, who declared: “It is possible to kill someone with kindness, literally. That could be the reason of the well‐meaning but extremely misguided attempts by European and North American groups that are advising Africans to be wary of agricultural biotechnology… Scientific evidence disproves [the] claims that enhanced crops are everything but safe… To deny desperate, hungry people the means to control their life by presuming to know what is best for them it's not only paternalistic, but morally wrong” (Helsinki Process Secretariat, 2005).
According to our research, developing countries, especially those from Africa, but also India are particularly affected and being susceptible to drought or civil conflict by food insecurity that can lead to famine or near‐famine conditions. However, until recently only three African states (Burkina Faso, Egypt, and South Africa) permitted GM crop productions. South Africa is the only country that allows GM food, while Burkina Faso and Egypt only allowing GM cotton. The GM crops argument is also prominent if we consider global climate change problems. Sever problems occur in the Asia Pacific, where arable land is rapidly changing because of increasing natural disasters and rising sea levels.
According to our analyses, if the GM crop factor is not considered in model, no positive effects on food insecurity can be detected; moreover, such highly influential factors than population growth and climate change will even increase food insecurity and political conflicts in developing countries.
Positive examples of GM crop adoption already exist. Latin America, which accounts, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri‐Biotech Applications, for approximately 45% of GM crops globally already preparing for the effects of the climate change and seemingly can solve its food problems by their ability to grow GM crops in the future. Further researches however will be necessary to test the possible effects of GM crops approval on global environmental change, water supply, and human migration.
According to our analyses, GM crops can improve food security and in broader way can alter political conflicts; thus, the food supply chain and policy decisions about safe GM crops should be the areas worth reconsidering. It can also be concluded that developing countries, especially those from Africa, but also India are particularly affected and being susceptible to drought or civil conflict by food insecurity that can lead to famine or near‐famine conditions. According to our analyses, if the GM crop is not considered as factor to mitigate conflict, no positive effects on food insecurity can be expected.
The authors of this article have no financial or other conflict of interest to declare.
The manuscript has not been published and is not being submitted or considered for publication elsewhere. No restrictions on data availability were formulated, and all data were collected from public sources using personally designed software. The text, illustrations, and any other materials included in the manuscript do not infringe any existing copyright or other rights of anyone.
© 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
1 Department of International Relations and European Studies, Faculty of Sciences and Arts, Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, Cluj‐Napoca, Romania
2 Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Technical and Human Science, Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, Romania
