Genetically Improved Crops - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 88

The late blight resistant potatoes discussed above could feasibly provide the same coop-
erative resistance for organic potato farmers in Europe but, since BASF have pulled their
production in the EU this cannot now be demonstrated. Research by Hutchison et al.
(2010) interestingly demonstrates a variation of this halo effect for Bt maize. As noted, to
mitigate against the evolution of resistance growers are required to maintain a 20% refu-
gia of non-Bt maize. Despite predictions that this single gene protection may select for
the development of resistant in corn borer larvae on maize or bollworm in cotton it has
proven to be remarkably resilient. While some resistance has arisen most specifically
in the latter where a mutation in the cadherin receptor has led to localized resistance,
it is much lower than might be expected given the extent of usage of the Bt phenotype.
Actually while mutations providing small decreases in susceptibility to Bt proteins are
relatively common, those conferring sufficient resistance to enable survival on some
types of Bt corn are exceedingly rare. Hutchison (2010) has demonstrated that this has
led to cumulative benefits over 14 years of between $3.2 and $3.6 billion with $1.9 to $2.4
billion of this total accruing to non-Bt maize growers. They postulate that these results
affirm theoretical predictions of pest population suppression and highlight economic
incentives for growers to maintain non-Bt maize refugia for sustainable insect resis-
tance management. While initially these refugia were required to be in specified plots
it has been put forward that mixing Bt and non-Bt maize grain during planting may
be an equally effective management strategy. However this effect is disputed by some
entomologists. Again enforcement of these requirements had been relatively easy in the
developed world; to do so in some regions may prove more challenging.
The obdurate attitude of the EU has consequences beyond the obvious economic.
A case in point is the BASF's decision to pull the Fortuna potato as cited above. Now
instead of adopting the GM Fortuna cultivar and the subsequent reduction of the use
of harmful chemicals, European farmers must rely on the continued use of fungicides
which are some of the least friendly biocontrol chemicals. Ironically, as noted, this
choice obstructs further expansion of organically produced potatoes and tomatoes
because adopting the GM Fortuna cultivar in “conventional” agriculture could have
led to reduced disease pressures benefitting alternative farming systems (Dixelius et al.
2012). In addition, as a major consumer of potatoes the EU will now become increas-
ingly dependent on import from other regions, as they inevitably lose the battle against
P. infestans. Over time these imported potatoes are likely to be GM Fortuna so Europe is
still left with the problem of tackling political resistance against it or any other GM crop.
While translation of biotech research into field crops is a challenge in the European
Union (EU) and even the United States, it is more difficult in LDCs. A problem fac-
ing Africa in particular is the lack of a dynamic private sector to take technologies to
the farmer. It has also been estimated that regulatory costs exceed the costs of research
and experimentation needed to develop a given GM crop, which is a major problem
in releasing such crops to farmers. A way to reduce the costs of generating food and
environmental safety data is to develop regional “centers of excellence” with comple-
mentary facilities for biosecurity compliance. This can be done reliably and could help
with reduction of regulatory costs. The economic gains from using genetically modified