GM Crops & Food

Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain

ISSN: 2164-5698 (Print) 2164-5701 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/kgmc20

The impact of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in

modern agriculture: A review

Ruchir Raman

To cite this article: Ruchir Raman (2017) The impact of Genetically Modified
(GM) crops in modern agriculture: A review, GM Crops & Food, 8:4, 195-208, DOI:
10.1080/21645698.2017.1413522

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2017.1413522

Published online: 03 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 145529

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 51 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=kgmc20
GM Crops & Food, 8:195–208, 2017
Ó 2017 Taylor & Francis
ISSN: 2164-5698 print / 2164-5701 online
DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2017.1413522

REVIEW

The impact of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in modern

agriculture: A review
Ruchir Raman
Faculty of Science (School of Biosciences), The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC
3010, Australia

ABSTRACT. Genetic modification in plants was first recorded 10,000 years ago in Southwest Asia
where humans first bred plants through artificial selection and selective breeding. Since then,
advancements in agriculture science and technology have brought about the current GM crop
revolution. GM crops are promising to mitigate current and future problems in commercial
agriculture, with proven case studies in Indian cotton and Australian canola. However, controversial
studies such as the Monarch Butterfly study (1999) and the S
eralini affair (2012) along with current
problems linked to insect resistance and potential health risks have jeopardised its standing with the
public and policymakers, even leading to full and partial bans in certain countries. Nevertheless, the
current growth rate of the GM seed market at 9.83–10% CAGR along with promising research
avenues in biofortification, precise DNA integration and stress tolerance have forecast it to bring
productivity and prosperity to commercial agriculture.

KEYWORDS. Genetic modification, GM, Agriculture, Crop

INTRODUCTION functions.1,2 The earliest concept of modification

for domestication and consumption of plants
Genetic modification (GM) is the area of bio- dates back »10,000 years where human ances-
technology which concerns itself with the manip- tors practiced “selective breeding” and “artificial
ulation of the genetic material in living selection” – the Darwinian-coined terms broadly
organisms, enabling them to perform specific referring to selection of parent organisms having

Correspondence to: Ruchir Raman; School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville
Campus Victoria 3010, Australia; Email:[email protected]
Received September 5, 2017; Revised November 20, 2017; Accepted November 22, 2017.
195
196 Raman

desirable traits (eg: hardier stems) and breeding DNA ligase – “molecular scissors and glue”
them for propagating their traits. The most dra- (Rangel, 2016) successfully engineered the
matic alteration of plant genetics using these world’s first GM organism. In agriculture, the
methods occurred through artificial selection of first GM plants – antibiotic resistant tobacco and
corn – from a weedy grass possessing tiny ears petunia – were successfully created in 1983 by
and few kernels (teosinte; earliest recorded three independent research groups. In 1990,
growth: central Balsas river valley, southern China became the first country to commercialise
Mexico 6300 years ago) to the current cultivars GM tobacco for virus resistance. In 1994, the
of edible corn and maize plants (Doebley et al., Flavr Savr tomato (Calgene, USA) became the
2016, Fig 1). The use of similar techniques has first ever Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
also been reported to derive current variants of approved GM plant for human consumption.
apples, broccoli and bananas different from their This tomato was genetically modified by anti-
ancestral plant forms which are vastly desirable sense technology to interfere with polygalacturo-
for human consumption.3 nase enzyme production, consequently causing
The developments leading to modern genetic delayed ripening and resistance to rot.4 Since
modification took place in 1946 where scientists then, several transgenic crops received approvals
first discovered that genetic material was transfer- for large scale human production in 1995 and
able between different species. This was followed 1996. Initial FDA-approved plants included corn/
by DNA double helical structure discovery and maize, cotton and potatoes (Bacillus thuringiensis
conception of the central dogma – the transcrip- (Bt) gene modification, Ciba-Geigy and Mon-
tion of DNA to RNA and subsequent translation santo) canola (Calgene: increased oil production),
into proteins – by Watson and Crick in 1954. cotton (Calgene: bromoxynil resistance) and
Consequently, a series of breakthrough experi- Roundup Ready soybeans (Monsanto: glyphosate
ments by Boyer and Cohen in 1973, which resistance),4 Fig 2). Currently, the GM crop pipe-
involved “cutting and pasting” DNA between dif- line has expanded to cover other fruits, vegetables
ferent species using restriction endonucleases and and cereals such as lettuce, strawberries, egg-
plant, sugarcane, rice, wheat, carrots etc. with
planned uses to increase vaccine bioproduction,
FIGURE 1. The evolution of modern corn/maize
nutrients in animal feed as well as confer salinity
(top) from teosinte plants (bottom) by repetitive
and drought resistant traits for plant growth in
selective breeding over several generations.
[Sources: 50 (top figure),51 (bottom figure)].
unfavourable climates and environment.4,2
Since their commercialisation, GM crops have
been beneficial to both economy and the environ-
ment. The global food crop yield (1996–2013)
has increased by > 370 million tonnes over a rel-
atively small acreage area.2 Furthermore, GM
crops have been recorded to reduce environmen-
tal and ecological impacts, leading to increases in
species diversity. It is therefore unsurprising that
GM crops have been commended by agricultural
scientists, growers and most environmentalists
worldwide.
Nevertheless, advancements in GM crops
have raised significant questions of their safety
and efficacy. The GM seed industry has been
plagued with problems related to human health
and insect resistance which have seriously
undermined their beneficial effects. Moreover,
poor science communication by seed companies,
a significant lack of safety studies and current
 GM CROPS: BENEFITS, CHALLENGES AND COMMERCIAL TRENDS 197

FIGURE 2. A timeline of events leading to the current GM crop era.

mistrust regarding GMOs have only com- 50% increase from 2013 – and further to an
pounded problems. These have led many coun- estimated 11bn by 2100. Current agricultural
tries, particularly the European Union and practices alone cannot sustain the world pop-
Middle East to implement partial or full restric- ulation and eradicate malnutrition and hunger
tions on GM crops. GM agriculture is now on a global scale in the future. Indeed, the
widely discussed in both positive and negative FAO also estimates that despite a significant
frames, and currently serves as a hotbed of reduction in global hunger, 653 mn people
debate in public and policymaking levels. will still be undernourished in 2030.8 Addi-
tionally, Ray et al. and other studies depict
the top four global crops (soybean, maize,
CHALLENGES IN COMMERCIAL wheat and rice) are increasing at 1.0%,
AGRICULTURE 0.9%, 1.6% and 1.3% per annum respec-
tively– approximately 42%, 38%, 67% and
The agriculture industry has been valued at an 55% lower than the required growth rate
estimated US$ 3.2 trillion worldwide and (2.4%/annum) to sustain the global popula-
accounts for a large share of the GDP and tion in 2050.9 Compounded with other
employment in developing and underdeveloped problems such as improved nutritional stand-
nations.5 For instance: Agriculture contributes ards in the burgeoning lower-middle class
only 1.4% towards the GDP and 1.62% of the and projected loss in arable land (from
workforce in US in comparison with South Asian 0.242 ha/person in 2016 to 0.18 ha/person in
regions, where it contributes 18.6% towards the 2050)2 due to degradation and accelerated
GDP and 50% of the workforce.6 However, urbanization, rapid world population expan-
despite employing nearly 1 in 5 people world- sion will increase demand for food resources.
wide (19% of the world’s population),7 the agri-
culture industry is projected to suffer significant
global setbacks (population growth, pest resis- Pests and Crop Diseases
tance and burden on natural resources) by 2050,
Annual crop loss to pests alone account for
which has been elaborated further in this section.
20–40% of the global crop losses. In terms of
economic value, tackling crop diseases and epi-
Explosive Population Growth demics and invasive insect problem costs the
agriculture industry approximately $290 mn
The Food and Agricultural Organisation annually.8 Currently, major epidemics continue
projects the global population to grow to to plague commercial agriculture. It has been
approximately 9.7 billion by 2050 – a near projected that crop disease and pest incidences
198 Raman

are expanding in a poleward direction (2.7 km 70% of all withdrawals, seriously depleting nat-
annually),10 indicated by coffee leaf rust and ural water resources in many countries. This
wheat rust outbreaks in Central America. These has particularly been observed in low rainfall
incidences have largely been attributed to an regions, such as Middle East, North Africa and
amalgamation of globalisation leading to Central Asia where water for agriculture
increased plant, pest and disease movement, accounts for 80–90%8 of the total water with-
increase in disease vectors, climate change and drawal. These trends are predicted to continue
global warming.8 well into the 21st century and therefore
While integrated pest management and pre- increase the burden of natural resource con-
vention techniques somewhat mitigate the pest sumption globally.
problem, they are insufficient to tackle the
transboundary crop-demics. The epidemiology
of the Panama disease (or Panama wilt), caused SOLUTIONS PROVIDED BY GM
by the soil fungus Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. CROPS
cubense (Foc)11 provides solid evidence in this
regard. Since the early-mid 1990s the Tropical GM crops have been largely successful in
Race-4 (TR4) strain, a single pathogen Foc fun- mitigating the above major agriculture chal-
gus clone, has significantly crippled the global lenges while providing numerous benefits to
banana industry. In 2013, the Mindanao Banana growers worldwide. From 1996–2013, they
Farmers and Exporters association (in Philip- generated $117.6 bn over 17 years in global
pines) reported infection in 5900 hectares of farm income benefit alone. The global yearly
bananas, including 3000 hectares that were net income increased by 34.3% in 2010–
abandoned. In Mozambique, symptomatic 2012.13,14 Furthermore, while increasing global
plants currently account for >20% of total yield by 22%, GM crops reduced pesticide
banana plantations (570,000 out 2.5m) since (active ingredient) usage by 37% and environ-
the reporting of TR4 in 2015. Additionally, mental impact (insecticide and herbicide use)
TR4 losses have cost Taiwanese, Malaysian, by 18%.15 To achieve the same yield standards
and Indonesian economies a combined estimate more than 300 million acres of conventional
of US$ 388.4 mn.12 Therefore, an alarming crops would have been needed, which
increase in transboundary crop and pest dis- would have further compounded current envi-
eases have broad environmental, social and ronmental and socioeconomic problems in
economic impacts on farmers and threaten food agriculture.2
security. To further emphasise the impact of GM
crops on economies: two case studies – GM
Canola (Australia) and GM cotton (India) –
Burden on Natural Resources have been highlighted in this review.

The FAO’s 2050 projections suggest pro-

jected natural resource scarcities for crop care.8 GM Cotton (India)
Despite overall agricultural efficiency, unsus-
tainable competition has intensified due to In India, cotton has served as an important
urbanisation, population growth, industrialisa- fibre and textile raw material and plays a vital
tion and climate change. Deforestation for agri- role in its industrial and agricultural economy.
cultural purposes has driven 80% of the Nearly 8 million farmers, most of them small
deforestation worldwide. In tropical and sub- and medium (having less than 15 acres of farm
tropical areas where deforestation is still wide- size and an average of 3–4 acres of cotton hold-
spread, agricultural expansion accounted for ings) depend on this crop for their livelihood. In
loss of 7 million hectares per annum of natural 2002, Monsanto-Mahyco introduced Bollgard-
forests between 2000–2010.8 Additionally, I, India’s first GM cotton hybrid containing
water withdrawals for agriculture accounted for Cry1Ac-producing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
 GM CROPS: BENEFITS, CHALLENGES AND COMMERCIAL TRENDS 199

genes for controlling the pink bollworm (P. enhanced Bt-cotton adoption among Indian cot-
gossypiella) pest.16 Initially, only 36% of the ton growers (Fig 3).
farmers adopted the new crop however this sta- Despite controversies, Bt-cotton’s implemen-
tistic soon grew to 46% in 200417 after Bt-cot- tation has largely benefited Indian farmers and
ton was approved nationwide. This was agricultural economy. Bt-cotton has increased
followed by approval and launch of Bollgard-II profits and yield by Rs. 1877 per acre (US$38)
(a two-toxin Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab-producing and 126 kg/acre of farmland respectively, 50%
Bt-pyramid conferring resistance to bollworm) and 24% more than profit and yield by conven-
by Monsanto-Mahyco, which subsequently tional cotton. This translates to a net increase of

FIGURE 3. Adoption of GM canola (top) and GM cotton (bottom) in Australia and India respectively.
The primary vertical axis shows the total acreage of cotton and canola along with the proportion of
GM and non-GM crops grown per year, while the secondary horizontal axis depicts the percentage
of GM crop adoption among farmers and growers per year. (Sources: 22,18).
200 Raman

Bt-cotton growers’ annual consumption expen- EPSP synthase (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-

ditures by 18% (Rs. 15,841/US$321) compared phosphate) alterations along with a glypho-
to non-adapters, highlighting improved living sate oxidoreductase gene making it glypho-
standards.17 Bt-cotton adoption has also resulted sate resistant. It gained OGTR approval after
in a 22-fold increase in India’s agri-biotech trials showed its environmental impact was
industry due to an unprecedented 212-fold rise less than half (43%) of triazine tolerant
in plantings from 2002–2011 (accounting for canola varieties21,19 and remains the only
»30% of global cotton farmland), surpassing OGTR-approved GM canola till date. The
China and making it a world leading grower introduction of Roundup ReadyÒ canola has
and exporter. 7 million out of the 8 million had a positive impact on farmers by control-
farmers (88%) are growing Bt-cotton annually. ling weeds that were erstwhile difficult to
Cotton crop yields have also increased 31% mitigate. In 2014, GM canola planting area
while conversely insecticide usage has more (hectares) was up to 14% in 2014 from just
than halved (46% to 21%) enhancing India’s 4% in 2009 (Fig 3), representing a near
cotton income by US$11.9 bn.18 Therefore, Bt- three-fold increase and contributing to Aus-
cotton has resulted in economic prosperity tralia’s growing biotech crop hectarage. This
among Bt-cotton growers, with 2002–11 often increase was more notable in WA, where
being called a white gold period for India’s GM GM canola was planted from 21% canola
cotton industry. farmers in 2014, up from 0% in 2009.22 This
has led to more research and development of
different canola varieties to improve oil con-
GM Canola (Australia) tent and quality, yield and maturity.20

Canola in Australia is grown as a break crop,

providing farmers a profitable alternative along
with rotational benefits from continuous cereal PROBLEMS AND CONTROVERSIES
crop phases and their related weed/pest mecha-
nisms. Other benefits include broadleaf weed Although a successful technology, GM crop
and cereal root disease control and better suc- use has been controversial and a hotbed for
cessive cereal crop growth. It is most promi- opposition. Their public image has been
nently grown in Western Australia (WA), severely impacted leading to full or partial bans
where it accounts for 400–800,000 ha of farm- in 38 countries including the European Union
land and is the most successful of four break (Fig 4). This section highlights major contro-
crops (oat, lupin, canola and field pea). From versies and reflects on some real problems
2002–2007, Canola production in WA alone faced by commercialised GM crops.
accounted for a yield of 440 mn tonnes valued
at A$200mn.19 Nevertheless Canola has been a
high risk crop and particularly susceptible to Monarch Butterfly Controversy (1999)
blackleg disease (caused by fungus Leptos-
phaeria maculans), and weeds such as charlock The Monarch butterfly controversy relates
(Sinapis arvensis), wild radish (Raphanus Losey et al.’s publication in Nature wherein
raphanistrum L) and Buchan (Hirschfeldia they compared Monarch butterfly (Danaus
incana (L.) Lagr.-Foss) which increase anti- plexippus) larval feeding cycle of milkweed
nutritional compound content and composition (Asclepias curassavica) dusted with N4640-Bt
in canola oil, degrading quality.20 maize pollen to a control (milkweed dusted
In 2008–09, two herbicide resistant GM with untransformed corn pollen). They
canola varieties: Roundup ReadyÒ (Mon- observed the N4640-Bt reared larvae to eat
santo) and InVigorÒ (Bayer Cropsciences) lesser, grow slower and have higher mortality
were introduced in Australia. Roundup and predicted N4640-Bt maize to have signifi-
ReadyÒ contained gene variants with altered cant off target effects and significantly impact
 GM CROPS: BENEFITS, CHALLENGES AND COMMERCIAL TRENDS 201

FIGURE 4. The figure depicts the current acceptance of GM crops in different countries. Green:
National bans. Yellow: Restrictive laws, Red: No formal laws (Source: 52).

Monarch populations due to the following and Sears et al.,25 argued that Bt-maize produc-
reasons: tion, should it rise to »80% would only affect
0.05%-6% monarch population.25
 Monarch larvae’s main nutrition is derived Nevertheless, Losey et al.’s results garnered
from milkweed, which commonly occurs acclaim in the press for raising both the pub-
in and around the corn field edges. lic’s and biotech companies’ consciousness
 Maize pollen shedding coincides with about possible off-target Bt-maize on monarch
monarch larval feeding cycles during sea- butterflies. However further attempts to extrap-
sonal summer. olate their results to other Bt and GM crops
 »50% of the Monarch population is con- have been unsuccessful, with current evidence
centrated within the US maize belt during suggesting effectiveness in insect control with-
summer, a region known for intense maize out off-target effects.25
production.23

Losey et al.’s conclusions were challenged

by academics for improper experimental design The S

eralini Affair (2012)
and validity and soundness of extrapolating
laboratory assays to field testing. There were The S
eralini affair concerns itself with a
many subsequent studies performed, depicting controversial GM crop study by Gilles-Eric

Bt-maize to be highly unlikely to affect Mon- S
eralini in Springer during 2012–14. The origi-
arch population. For instance: Pleasants nal paper published in 2012 studied the effect
et al.,24 reasoned that several factors, most of NK-603 Roundup ReadyÒ Maize (NK-603
notably rainfall (reducing pollen by 54–86%) RR Maize) on rats. It used the same experimen-
and leaf pollen distribution (30–50% on upper tal setup as an earlier Monsanto safety study to
plant portions/preferred larval feeding sites) gain maize approval26 and reached the follow-
reduced larval exposure to Bt-maize pollen24 ing observations:
202 Raman

 Significant chronic kidney deficiencies most notable example of this is Starlink maize,
representing 76% of altered parameters. a Cry9c-expressing cultivar conferring glupho-
 3–5x higher incidence of necrosis and sinate resistance. In the mid-1990s, the
liver congestions in treated males. USDA’s Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) clas-
 2–3-fold increase in female treatment sified Cry9c Starlink as “potentially allergenic”
group mortality. due to its potential to interact with the human
 High tumour incidences in both treated immune system. In 1998, the US Environment
sexes, starting 600 days earlier than con- Protection Agency (EPA) granted approval for
trol (only one tumour noted in control). Starlink’s use in commercial animal feed and
industry (eg: biofuels) but banned it for human
The 2012 study attributed observations to consumption. Following this, relatively small
EPSPS overexpression in NK-603 RR Maize, Starlink quantities (»0.5% of the US corn acre-
found the Monsanto study conclusions age) were planted between 1998–2000.29,30 In
“unjustifiable” and recommended thorough 2000, Starlink residues were detected in food
long-term toxicity feeding studies on edible supplies not only in USA but also EU, Japan
GM crops.27 The paper divided opinion, with and South Korea where it completely banned.
S
eralini being framed as both as a hero of the Furthermore, the EPA received several adverse
anti-GM movement and as an unethical allergic event reports related to corn, prompting
researcher. His paper drew heavy criticism for a worldwide Starlink recall. About 300 differ-
its flawed experimental design, animal type ent maize products were recalled in US alone
used for study, statistical analysis and data pre- by Kellogg’s and Mission Foods. Starlink inad-
sentation deficiencies and overall misrepresen- vertently affected »50% of US maize supply
tations of science and was retracted (Arj
o and depressed US corn prices by 8% for
et al., 2012,.28 In 2014, S
eralini republished his CY2001.31
nearly-identical study in expanded form which Another problem faced by GM crops cur-
since continues to fuel the GM crop debate. rently is pest resistance due to gene overexpres-
sion leading to pest evolution via natural
selection. Indeed, an analysis of 77 studies’
GM Crops: An Imperfect Technology results by Tabashnik et al. depicted reduced
Bt-crop efficacy caused by field evolved pest
Despite the above controversies being resistance for 5 out of 13 (38.4%) major pest
proven unfounded, GM crops are an “imperfect species examined in 2013, compared to just
technology” with potential major health risks one in 2005,32 Table 1). Furthermore, such
of toxicity, allergenicity and genetic hazards resistance can be evolved over several genera-
associated to them. These could be caused by tions in a relatively short time as most insects
inserted gene products and their potential pleio- have shorter life spans. In maize, S.frugiperda
tropic effects, the GMO’s natural gene disrup- and B.fusca resistance was reported after just 3
tion or a combination of both factors.4,2 The and 8 years respectively, consistent with the

TABLE 1. Crops reported with >50% pest resistance and reduced efficacy.

Time to
Pest Affected crop Country Gene2 resistance (years)1

B. fusca (Maize stalk borer) Maize South Africa Cry1Ab 8

D.v.virgifera (Western Corn Rootworm) Maize USA Cry3Bb 7
P. gossypiella (Pink Bollworm) Cotton India Cry1Ac 6
H. zea (Corn earworm) Cotton USA Cry1Ac 6
S. frugiperda (Fall armyworm) Maize USA Cry1F 3

1- Time to first reported resistance of pest to GM plant. 2-Toxin secreted by affected GM plant.
 GM CROPS: BENEFITS, CHALLENGES AND COMMERCIAL TRENDS 203

worst case scenarios. In the former, it led to fuels in Asia-Pacific (APAC) and Africa, lead-
crop withdrawal in Puerto Rico and was ing to increase plantings of energy crops
reported to still affect maize growers in 2011, (wheat, sugarcane, corn and soybean) for pro-
4 years after crop withdrawal. In India, P. gos- duction. Nevertheless, despite growth spikes in
sypiella resistance currently affects »90% APAC and Africa, North America currently
Bollgard-II Bt-hybrid cotton growers and dominates the GM seed industry with a market
»35% (4 million ha) of cultivable cotton area share of »30%, and is forecast to do so in 2020
in key regions.32,33 (MarketWatch, 2017).
To mitigate the problems regarding GM The GM seed market has currently been con-
technologies, a series of strict regulatory meas- solidated by the “big five” companies: Mon-
ures have been proposed to prevent cross-con- santo, Bayer CropScience, Dupont, Syngenta
tamination of split-approved GM crops banned and Groupe Limagrain (Table 2). As of 2016,
for human consumption. These include imple- they account for 70% of the market (up from
mentation and enforcement buffer zones to pre- »60% in 2009).37,38 The “big five” players are
vent cross contamination of crops, better currently acquiring and forming joint ventures
laboratory testing to confirm adverse allergic with smaller firms and competitors on a trans-
event cases and an overall inclusion of stake- national scale, serving as strong entry barriers
holders and representatives in policymaking in this industry.36 Since 2016, major ongoing
and communication.30 Additionally, Bt pest Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As): Syngenta’s
resistance could be controlled by implementa- takeover by ChemChina (completed June
tion of high-dose Bt toxin standards in trans- 2017- US$43 bn),39 Bayer-Monsanto merger
genic crops and evaluation of insect responses, (ongoing- $66bn)40 and Dow-Dupont merger
integration of Host plant resistance (HPR) traits (»US$140 bn- antitrust approval)41 have been
in cultivars to control secondary pests,34 prepa- happening in the industry. Only time will deter-
ration of abundant non-Bt plants refuges near mine how these M&As impact the industry,
Bt crops and proactive implementation of two- growers and consumers.
toxin Bt-pyramids producing  2 distinct toxins The latest reports indicate that the agricul-
against as single pest species.32 These sug- ture industry invests around $69 billion glob-
gested measures in pest management and regu- ally on its Research and Development
lation if implemented could help the (R&D).42 This investment has fuelled research
agriculture industry overcome the imperfect many emerging avenues for GM crop technol-
problems of GM crops while significantly ogy. However, innovation has strictly been
regaining public trust of this technology. influenced by the “big five” due to broad patent
claims, and high research, legal and develop-
ment costs for patent eligible products. For
GM AGRICULTURE: TRENDS instance, the top 3 seed companies controlled
AND FUTURE AVENUES 85% transgenic and 70% non-transgenic corn
patents in USA in 2009.36
The GM seed market has changed drastically In the GM seed market, R&D is currently
since 1996 from a competitive sector owned by occurring in the conventional areas of insect
family owners to one of the fastest growing resistance, increased crop yield and herbicide
global industries dominated by a small number tolerance. Increasing R&D has also been
of corporations. Analysts predict a Com- invested on precision site-directed nuclease
pounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) techniques (CRISPR, ZFNs and TALENs) for
between 9.83–10% between 2017–2022 for this desired gene integration in host plants.14,43
industry where it is projected to reach Current studies show negligible/zero off target
US$113.28 bn, an approximately four-fold mutations (Schnell et al., 2015,.44 This is
increase from US$26.7 bn in 2007,35,36 Market- starkly contrasting to conventional breeding
Watch, 2016). This has been attributed to a ris- techniques which are often associated with
ing biofuel adoption in lieu of conventional undesired alteration risks via linkage drag and
 204

TABLE 2. A snapshot of the “big five” GM seed companies.

Financials

Share price
FY2016 (2016–2017) Market
FY2016 Net income Capitalisation
Revenue (Billions 52wk low 52wk high (Billions) and
Company Headquarters Industry Status Product types (Billions US$) US$) share (%)6 Website

Monsanto Missouri, USA Agribusiness Merger with Bayer Herbicides, pesticides, 13.5 1.32 USD USD USD 51.41 https://mon
AG2 Crop seeds, GMOs 97.35 118.97 26% santo.com/
Dupont Delaware, Agriculture/ Merger with Dow: Hybrid and Varietal 7.743 1.113 USD USD USD 73.23 http://www.
(Pioneer) USA Subsidiary of antitrust Seeds 66.02 85.48 18.2% dupont.
Dupont approval (US$ com
140 bn)2
Syngenta Basel, Agribusiness, ChemChina Pesticides, Seeds, 12.791 1.1811 USD USD USD 42.56 http://www.syn
Raman

Switzerland Chemicals takeover (US$ Flowers 74.52 93.61 9.2% genta.com/

43bn)2
Groupe Puy-de-dome, Horticulture Independent Seeds 2.921, 5 0.0661, 5 Not quoted4, 4.8% http://www.
Limagrain France limagrain.
com/
?langDen
Bayer AG Leverkusen, Agriculture/ Merger with Crop protection, pest 54.541 5.281 EUR 84.40 EUR EUR 91.75 https://www.
(Bayer Germany Subsidiary of Monsanto2 control (non- 123.90 3.3% bayer.com/
CropScience) Bayer AG agriculture), seeds,
plant biotechnology

1 – Converted from EUR at current NASDAQ rates (July 2017), 2 – Ongoing Merger/Acquisition, 3- Completed Merger/Acquisition, 4- Public non-quoted company, 5- Sourced from Hoovers D&B, 2017,
6 – In this case, market share represents global market share and market capitalisation is local.
 GM CROPS: BENEFITS, CHALLENGES AND COMMERCIAL TRENDS 205

random, unspecified mutations.45 Addition- in commercial agriculture for smoother prog-

ally, biofortification and stress tolerance have ress in the future.
been identified as areas for future GM seed
research. Both fields are currently of major
interest with a growing body of scientific stud- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ies. They tackle key problems: while bioforti-
fication addresses malnutrition and Although this review article is my own
micronutrient deficiency; stress tolerance work, it would not have been possible without
addresses biodegradation, climate change and certain people. I would like to thank the editor
shrinking cultivable area. Since the develop- and the reviewers for their helpful comments
ment of Vitamin-A biofortified rice in 2000,46 and remarks. I would also like to extend my
studies highlight further extrapolation in gratitude towards the University of Melbourne
enhancing human diet using biofortifications, staff, especially Dr. Matthew Digby and Mrs.
with recorded success in iron and zinc.47 Fiona Simpson for their encouragement in this
Moreover, recent genetic modification studies venture. I would further extend my thanks to
in Arabidopsis and Barley have depicted adap- my peers, teachers and other people I met dur-
tation to stress tolerance and biomass growth ing my academic journey. Lastly, I would like
in adverse conditions (Mendiondo et al., to extend my deepest appreciation towards my
2016,.48 Three stress-tolerant corn hybrids family, who encouraged me to pursue a scien-
[Pioneer Optimum AQUAmaxTM (Dupont tific career in Biotechnology and have been
Pioneer), Syngenta ArtesianTM (Syngenta) and wonderfully supportive of my career goals.
GenuityTM DroughtGardTM (Monsanto)] are This review article is my maiden article in an
currently being marketed for drought resis- academic journal, and I would like to thank all
tance,49 showcasing enormous potential for the readers for being a part of it.
economic profitability in the above areas.

ORCID

CONCLUSION Ruchir Raman http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8293-8198

GM crops can mitigate several current chal-

REFERENCES
lenges in commercial agriculture. Current mar-
ket trends project them as one of the fastest 1. Morse S, Mannion AM “Genetically modified cotton
growing and innovative global industries, and sustainability”. Geographical Paper No. 184.
which not only benefit growers but also con- Department of Geography School of Human and
sumers and major country economies. How- Environmental Sciences University of Reading
ever, it is imperative that the agricultural Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AB; 2008.
industry and science community invest in better 2. Zhang C, Wohlhueter R, Zhang H. Genetically modi-
fied foods: A critical review of their promise and
science communication and regulation to tackle
problems. Food Science and Human Wellness.
unethical research and misinformation. Imper- 2016;5(3):116–123. doi:10.1016/j.fshw.2016.04.002
fections and major GM technology can also be 3. Rangel G From Corgis to Corn: A brief look at the
combated by stricter regulation, monitoring long history of GMO Technology – Science in the
and implementation by government agriculture News. Harvard University: The Graduate School of
bodies, a globally improved risk mitigation Arts and Sciences; 2015. Available at: http://sitn.
strategy and communication with growers, hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-
brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/
therefore ensuring greater acceptance. With
[Accessed 28 Jun. 2017].
key innovation in precision gene-integration 4. Bawa A, Anilakumar K. Genetically modified foods:
technologies and emerging research in bioforti- safety, risks and public concerns—a review. J Food
fication and stress tolerance, GM crops are Sci Technol. 2013;50(6):1035–1046. doi:10.1007/
forecast to bring productivity and profitability s13197-012-0899-1.
206 Raman

5. World Bank. Agriculture, value added (current US$). 19. Fisher J, Tozer P Evaluation of the environmental and
2017. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indica economic impact of Roundup ReadyÒ canola in the
tor/NV.AGR.TOTL.CD [Accessed 5 Jul. 2017]. Western Australia crop production system. Northam,
6. Nayar R, Gottret P, Mitra P, Betcherman G, Lee YM, W.A.: Curtin University of Technology Muresk, School
Santos I, Dahal M, Shrestha M More and Better Jobs of Agriculture and Environment; 2009.
in South Asia. South Asia development matters. 1st 20. Salisbury P, Cowling W, Potter T. Continuing
ed. Washington DC: The World Bank. Ó World innovation in Australian canola breeding. Crop
Bank; 2012. and Pasture Science. 2016;67(4):266. doi:10.1071/
7. CropLife International. Agriculture: A $2.4 Tril- CP15262.
lion Industry Worth Protecting. 2017. Available 21. Agriculture Victoria. What is Canola and GM Can-
at: https://croplife.org/news/agriculture–a–2–4–tril ola? j Genetically Modified Crops j Biotechnology j
lion-industry-worth-protecting/ [Accessed 10 Jul. Innovation and research j Agriculture j Agriculture
2017]. Victoria. 2017. Available at: http://agriculture.vic.
8. FAO. The future of food and agriculture j FAO j gov.au/agriculture/innovation-and-research/biotech
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nology/genetically-modified-crops/what-is-canola-
Nations. 2017. Available at: http://www.fao.org/publi and-gm-canola [Accessed 25 Jun. 2017].
cations/fofa/en/ [Accessed 3 Jul. 2017]. 22. ABCA. GM canola growth in Australia (2009–2014)
9. Ray D, Mueller N, West P, Foley J. Yield Trends are j Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia.
insufficient to double global crop production by 2017. Available at: https://www.abca.com.au/
2050. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66428. doi:10.1371/ [Accessed 5 Jul. 2017].
journal.pone.0066428. 23. Losey J, Rayor L, Carter M. Transgenic pollen harms
10. Bebber DP, Holmes T, Gurr SJ. The global spread of monarch larvae. Nature. 1999;399(6733):214–214.
crop pests and pathogens. Global Ecol Biogeogr. doi:10.1038/20338.
2014;23(12):1398–1407. doi:10.1111/geb.12214. 24. Pleasants J, Hellmich R, Dively G, Sears M, Stanley-
11. Ordonez N, Seidl M, Waalwijk C, Drenth A, Kilian Horn D, Mattila H, Foster J, Clark P, Jones G. Corn
A, Thomma B, Ploetz R, Kema G. Worse comes to pollen deposition on milkweeds in and near corn-
worst: Bananas and Panama Disease—When Plant fields. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98(21):11919–
and Pathogen clones meet. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11 11924. doi:10.1073/pnas.211287498.
(11):e1005197. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1005197. 25. Sears M, Hellmich R, Stanley-Horn D, Oberhauser
12. ProMusa Organisation. Tropical race 4 – TR4 j K, Pleasants J, Mattila H, Siegfried B, Dively G.
News, knowledge and information on bananas. Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly
2017. Available at: http://www.promusa.org/ populations: A risk assessment. Proc Natl Acad
TropicalCraceC4C–CTR4#Impact [Accessed 11 Sci. 2001;98(21):11937–11942. doi:10.1073/
Jul. 2017]. pnas.211329998.
13. Brookes G, Barfoot P. Economic impact of GM 26. Hammond B, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M.
crops: The global income and production effects Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with
1996–2012. GM Crops Food. 2014;5(1):65–75. rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn.
doi:10.4161/gmcr.28098. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004;42(6):1003–1014.
14. Chen H, Lin Y. Promise and issues of genetically doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.013.
modified crops. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2013;16 27. S
eralini G, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N,
(2):255–260. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2013.03.007. Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vend^ omois J. Repub-
15. Kl€umper W, Qaim M. A Meta-Analysis of the lished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbi-
impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS One. cide and a Roundup-tolerantgenetically modified
2014;9(11):e111629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. maize. Environ Sci Eur. 2014;26(14).
0111629. 28. Zdziarski I, Edwards J, Carman J, Haynes J GM
16. Choudhary B, Gaur K Biotech Cotton in India, 2002 crops and the rat digestive tract: A critical review.
to 2014. ISAAA Series of Biotech Crop Profiles. Environ Int. 2014;73:423–433. doi:10.1016/j.
Ithaca, NY: ISAAA; 2015. envint.2014.08.018.
17. Kathage J, Qaim M. Economic impacts and impact 29. US EPA. StarlinkTM corn regulatory information j
dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in Pesticides jUS EPA. 2017. Available at: https://
India. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(29):11652– www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/
11656. doi:10.1073/pnas.1203647109. pip/starlink_corn.htm#proposal [Accessed 5 Jul.
18. James C Global status of commercialized biotech/ 2017].
GM crops, 2011. 43rd ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: International 30. Bucchini L, Goldman L. Starlink Corn: A Risk analy-
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applica- sis. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110(1):5–13.
tions (ISAAA); 2011. doi:10.1289/ehp.021105.
 GM CROPS: BENEFITS, CHALLENGES AND COMMERCIAL TRENDS 207

31. Carter C, Smith A. Estimating the market effect of a repair for a natural end-product. Plant J. 2017;90
food Scare: The case of genetically modified Star- (4):819–833. doi:10.1111/tpj.13469.
Link Corn. Rev Econ Stat. 2007;89(3):522–533. 44. Svitashev S, Schwartz C, Lenderts B, Young J, Mark
doi:10.1162/rest.89.3.522. Cigan A Genome editing in maize directed by
32. Tabashnik B, Br
evault T, Carriere Y. Insect resis- CRISPR–Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nat
tance to Bt crops: lessons from the first billion acres. Commun. 2016;7:13274. doi:10.1038/
Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(6):510–521. doi:10.1038/ ncomms13274.
nbt.2597. 45. Liang Z, Chen K, Li T, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Zhao Q,
33. Jain B. Bt cotton falling to pest, Maharashtra Liu J, Zhang H, Liu C, Ran Y, Gao C. Efficient DNA-
tensed – Times of India. The Times of India. free genome editing of bread wheat using CRISPR/
2017. Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes. Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nat Commun.
com/city/mumbai/bt-cotton-falling-to-pest-mahara 2017;8:14261. doi:10.1038/ncomms14261.
shtra-tensed/articleshow/59449010.cms [Accessed 46. Beyer Y, Al-Babili S, Ye X, Lucca P, Schaub P,
29 Jun. 2017]. Welsch R, Potrykus I. Engineering the Provitamin A
34. Trapero C, Wilson I, Stiller W, Wilson L. Enhancing (-Carotene) Biosynthetic pathway into (Carotenoid-
integrated pest management in GM Cotton Systems Free) Rice endosperm. Science. 2000;287
using host plant resistance. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7 (5451):303–305. doi:10.1126/science.287.5451.303.
(1):1–12. 47. Bouis H, Saltzman A. Improving nutrition through
35. Cision: PR Newswire. Seed market Worth 113.28 biofortification: A review of evidence from Harvest-
Billion USD by 2022. 2016. Available at: http:// Plus, 2003 through 2016. Glob Food Sec.
www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seed-market- 2017;12:49–58. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.009.
worth-11328-billion-usd-by-2022-604264946. 48. Sukrong S, Yun K, Stadler P, Kumar C, Facciuolo T,
html#continue-jump [Accessed 27 Jun. 2017]. Moffatt B, Falcone D. Improved growth and stress
36. Howard P. Visualizing consolidation in the Global tolerance in the Arabidopsis oxt1 Mutant triggered
Seed Industry: 1996–2008. Sustainability. 2009;1 by altered adenine metabolism. Mol Plant. 2012;5
(4):1266–1287. doi:10.3390/su1041266. (6):1310–1332. doi:10.1093/mp/sss065.
37. Business Wire. Global genetically modified seeds 49. Adee E, Roozeboom K, Balboa G, Schlegel A, Ciam-
market to witness growth through 2020 Due to rise in pitti I. Drought-Tolerant corn hybrids Yield More in
adoption of Bio-fuels: Reports Technavio. 2016. Drought-Stressed environments with No Penalty in
Available at: http://www.businesswire.com/news/ Non-stressed Environments. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7
home/20160830005089/en/Global-Genetically-Modi (1534)
fied-Seeds-Market-Witness-Growth [Accessed 27 50. Centre for Food Safety. Proposed Oregon legislation
Jun. 2017]. would allow communities to protect Farmers’ tradi-
38. ETC Group. Who Owns Nature? Corporate power tional crops from contamination by genetically engi-
and the final frontier in the commodification of life, neered crops. 2016. Available at: https://www.
pp 11-16. Ottawa: ETC group; 2008 centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4211/pro
39. Fortune Finance. ChemChina clinches Its $43 Billion posed-oregon-legislation-would-allow-communities-
Takeover of Syngenta. 2017. Available at: http://for to-protect-farmers-traditional-crops-from-contamina
tune.com/2017/05/05/chemchina-syngenta-deal- tion-by-genetically-engineered-crops [Accessed 17
acquisition/ [Accessed 28 Jun. 2017]. Jul. 2017].
40. Tovey A. Bayer agrees $66bn Monsanto deal to cre- 51. Singh P, Kumar S, Kumar A, Kumar R. Effect of
ate agrichemicals giant. The Telegraph. 2017. Avail- crop establishment/irrigation techniques and nitrogen
able at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/ levels on growth, yield, nutrient uptake and quality
09/14/bayer-agrees-66bn-monsanto-deal-to-create- of hybrid maize (Zea mays L.). International Journal
agrichemicals-giant/ [Accessed 3 Jul. 2017]. of Agronomy and Agricultural Research (IJAAR).
41. McLaughlin D, Kaskey J. Dow-DuPont Wins U.S. 2015;6(6):82–90.
Antitrust Nod to create chemicals giant. Bloomberg 52. Genetic Literacy Project. Where are GMOs grown
Markets. 2017. Available at: https://www.bloomberg. and banned?. 2017. Available at: https://gmo.geneti
com/news/articles/2017-06-15/dow-dupont-wins-u-s- cliteracyproject.org/FAQ/where-are-gmos-grown-
antitrust-nod-to-create-chemicals-giant-j3ytxk4y and-banned/ [Accessed 14 Jul. 2017].
[Accessed 26 Jun. 2017]. 53. Arj
o G, Portero M, Pi~nol C, Vi~nas J, Matias-Guiu X,
42. Smyth S. Genetically modified crops, regulatory Capell T, Bartholomaeus A, Parrott W, Christou P.
delays, and international trade. Food and Energy Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudo-
Security. 2017;6(2):78–86. doi:10.1002/fes3.100. science: an in depth analysis of the S
eralini et al.
43. Pacher M, Puchta H. From classical mutagenesis to study claiming that RoundupTM Ready corn or the
nuclease-based breeding – directing natural DNA herbicide RoundupTM cause cancer in rats.
208 Raman

Transgenic Res. 2013;22(2):255–267. doi:10.1007/ King J, Axcell B, Smart K, Corbineau F, Holds-

s11248-013-9692-9. worth M. Enhanced waterlogging tolerance in bar-
54. D&B Hoovers. Groupe Liamgrain j Revenue and finan- ley by manipulation of expression of the N-end
cial reports. 2017. Available at: http://www.hoovers. rule pathway E3 ligase PROTEOLYSIS6. Plant
com/company-information/cs/revenue-financial.lima Biotechnol J. 2015;14(1):40–50. doi:10.1111/
grain.e9663bcf85b2d99f.html [Accessed 3 Jul. 2017]. pbi.12334.
55. Doebley J, Gaut B, Smith B The Molecular genetics 58. NASDAQ. NASDAQ’s Homepage for retail invest-
of crop domestication. Cell. 2006;127(7):1309–1321. ors. 2017. Available at: http://www.nasdaq.com/
doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.006. [Accessed 4 Jul. 2017].
56. MarketWatch. Genetically modified seeds Market – 59. Schnell J, Steele M, Bean J, Neuspiel M, Girard
9.83% CAGR to 2020. 2016. Available at: http:// C, Dormann N, Pearson C, Savoie A,
www.marketwatch.com/story/genetically-modified- Bourbonniere L, Macdonald P. A comparative
seeds-market—983-cagr-to-2020-2016-09-07- analysis of insertional effects in genetically engi-
6203112 [Accessed 9 Jul. 2017]. neered plants: considerations for pre-market
57. Mendiondo G, Gibbs D, Szurman-Zubrzycka M, assessments. Transgenic Res. 2014;24(1):1–17.
Korn A, Marquez J, Szarejko I, Maluszynski M, doi:10.1007/s11248-014-9843-7.