‘Poultry growth may flatten without GM corn’

An interview with team from CropLife Pakistan Association

The subject of Genetically Modified (GM) crop came to highlight once again when opposition by local seed companies made rounds in the media last month. While genetically modified cotton has been growing in Pakistan for over 15 years, farmers’ experience with Bt. cotton has at best remained mixed. International biotech companies counter that GM fibre crop was never introduced in the country through official channels, and the mixed bag of success and failure is most attributable to lack of stewardship opportunity. As biotech firms gear up to introduce GM food crop in the form of Bt. maize, for the first time in subcontinent, the opposition by various quarters has come out very strongly.

To understand the context surrounding the controversy, BR Research sat down with team from CropLife Pakistan Association, a global industry body for plant science industry. In the edited excerpts below, we try to understand the science behind the technology, its challenges, opportunities, potential environmental and health risks, advantages over alternatives, and its economic and trade potential.

Due to the length of the discussion, the interview is segmented into two parts. Excerpts from the first part are presented below:

BR Research: Agronomic techniques such as precision agriculture, drip irrigation, System of Rice Intensification (SRI) have helped improved yield substantially in various countries with similar climatic conditions as Pakistan. Given the controversy surrounding GMO, why should the policy focus not be towards environmentally and biologically safer practices instead of biotech?

CropLife: There are no binary answers to the challenges faced by agriculture today. A broad-based transformation will require an integrated approach that involves introduction of biotech (GMO); improving agronomics; precision in application of key inputs such as water, fertilizers, and chemicals; and improved marketing.

Innovations in agriculture, whether under the ambit of biotech or organic farming, are all valid ways to achieve the objective of ensuring food security in a sustainable manner. In terms of nutrition and safety, scientifically speaking, it is not correct that any one of these alternatives is superior to others in all aspects.

Consumer preference between conventional, biotech, and organic farming practices across societies are based on differences in demographics, income levels, as well as cultural perceptions. While strongly held views on both side of the GM debate need to be respected, but with due consideration to the decades of scientific research behind biotech.

BRR: Biotech has been most successful in countries such as USA with large average farm sizes. In contrast, farming sector in Pakistan is highly fragmented, with median farmer surviving on subsistence. Is it the most suitable answer given the unique challenges of Pakistan’s agriculture?

CL: The advocacy for biotech is based on the premise that it is “scale neutral”. This means that in contrast to competing technologies that require scale in the form of larger landholdings (and are usually capital-intensive upfront), technology delivered through seed is equally, if not more suitable, for small-hold farmers.

Let me illustrate this point. Resourceful farmers are able to proactively manage their crop; for example, they pre-empt pest attacks by using insecticides; switching crop cycles etc. Given their limited resources, small farmers, in contrast, are reactive, spraying fields surgically after scouting for signs of pest attacks. Rarely does a small farmer have enough liquidity to be proactive in use of pesticides.

This is because small farmers base the trade-off between using costly pesticides and lower returns on the extent to which a pest attack may compromise yield. Beyond economic thresholds, they seldom use pesticides. Crop failures occur when farmers miscalculate the potential damage and decide against using these chemicals.

Thus, GM seeds can prove particularly useful in protecting against crop failure and sub economic threshold damage, given their built-in protection against pest infestations. And this is the core guiding principle in its marketing as well. While GMO should not be misrepresented as a “silver bullet”, it brings ‘peace of mind to farmers’. It enhances yield without forcing farmers to adopt any other major changes to their farming practices.

Let me add that farmers with large landholdings may not see an equally large quantum increase in yield from GM seeds as would small-hold farmers, because the latter segment is currently operating way below par. Put this another way, the high number of small-hold farmers with very low yields is why national averages of various crop yields in Pakistan are so low.

BRR: Is it correct that GMO seeds eliminate the need for pesticides and chemicals altogether?

CL: It varies from crop to crop. Conventionally grown maize, for example, requires application of insecticide at two stages. First, insecticides are used for seed treatment right after sowing to ward off shoot fly. Thereafter, pesticides are used to fight stem borer, army worms and American attacks that affect the plant for the remainder of its lifecycle. In Pakistan, national maize yield loss due to stem borer and similar insects is in the range of 15-30 percent.

Bt. corn seeds, which carries genome of a soil bacterium, expresses proteins toxic to corn borer and other lepidopteron insects, eliminating the need for pesticide use. However, as it is not effective against shoot fly, farmers will be required to do seed treatment at the time of sowing.

Similarly, conventional herbicides used on maize crop have a very limited spectrum; they either help control broad leaf weeds or grassy weeds. In contrast, genetically modified corn can tolerate herbicides such as Roundup (glyphosate) which is broad spectrum and take care of almost all type of weeds.

Practically, using GM corn seeds and Roundup herbicide does not pose a major behavioural change to farmers as it will be akin to switching one type of seed and chemicals for another, rather, they will need to use fewer chemicals than before. It is also less labour-intensive because the grower will need not keep post-emergent vigilance as under conventional farming.

BRR: One of the major criticisms against GMO technology is that pests develop resistance over time. How real is this fear?

CL: Scientifically speaking, resistance development is a natural phenomenon. Take pharmaceuticals for example, early generation antibiotics were followed by second, third, and even fourth generation antibiotics. This is because genetic mutation is a natural process; the sooner an organism reproduces, the greater the chances of it developing resistance through natural means.

Resistance can, however, be managed. Ways and means to increase the longevity of the technology through stewardship efforts are well established. With appropriate support, first generation technologies can last from 10 to up to 15 years. Longevity extends even further for second generation technologies.

On the flipside, in absence of proper stewardship, resistance will develop very rapidly. This has been witnessed globally.

In Pakistan, farmers of Bt cotton do not adopt insect resistance management practices while in contrast, in USA and Australia, regulatory pressure ensures that stewardship parameters are followed to the letter. Moreover, biotech companies in Australia perform surveys and invoice growers based on cultivated area. In some countries, farmers also receive rebates when they follow required stewardship measures.

Of course, dynamics vary in subcontinent because of high number of farmers when compared to developed regions which renders these parameters impractical. To address this, biotech companies came up with a strategy called refuge-in-a-bag (RIB) in which non-traited seeds (which serve as refuge) are pre-mixed with Bt. insect protected seeds in one bag. For example, 95 percent of seeds may contain both herbicide and insecticide control technology, while remaining contains herbicide control technology only.

In developed countries, the two types are colour coded differently; however, in subcontinent these are blended in mono-colour to deter farmers from throwing away non-Bt seeds. Thus, even in regions where farmers lack appreciation for stewardship, longevity of technology can be ensured.

In Pakistan, the two companies which have received licensing for bringing GM corn have made sure that stewardship for refuge is made of the terms of approval.

BRR: Keeping in mind lack of literacy amongst farmers, what mechanisms can be in place to restrain farmers from purchasing Bt. seeds in one season and then cross-breeding them with conventional varieties in subsequent seasons to save cost?

CL: The likelihood is at least very low in case of maize. Back when companies introduced hybrid corn in this region, farmers tried to use grain of first crop for plantation in following season. Except, this reduced yield substantially.

As a result, corn farmers in Pakistan who have pre-dominantly been using hybrid seeds for over 15 years have firmly developed a sense of purchasing fresh seeds every season, which is why national maize yield has also grown at a very high rate.

In contrast, this may not hold true for cotton, where there a lot more varieties and farmer save seeds. Keep in mind that Bt. cotton was introduced unofficially, therefore has not received a similar stewardship effort. In turn, such ad hoc practices have contributed to decline of cotton crop in the country as yield has fallen. That is where role of the regulator comes in.

BRR: What will be the price differential between GM corn seeds and hybrid varieties?

CL: Biotech companies refer to the concept of price-to-value in pricing seeds, whether GM or hybrid. Pricing follows benchmarks of incremental value (in yield terms) that a given seed hybrid offers.

For example, every year biotech companies source up to 200 hybrid varieties from global repository and test their adaptability with local conditions. After a rigorous four-year process during which trials are run to assess value, one or two varieties are identified that offer substantial additional value. Internal checks and balances ensure that in case incremental value (over varieties already in the market) does not meet set benchmarks, no new variety is introduced. As a result, no more than four to five hybrid varieties are available in the market in each season.

And that’s the only way of running a sustainable business. Looking at the market of hybrid maize seed varieties, it is no coincidence that multinational biotech companies not only enjoy credibility with farmers, but also have more than 90 percent of market share in Punjab for both spring and autumn season crops. Even though seeds exist at various price points, farmers are now well-aware that a variety priced at 50 percent lower rate will also result in yield reduced by half.

BRR: The philosophy of price-to-value is well taken. Nevertheless, affordability of pricing (in absolute terms) is still relevant because of the sheer percentage of small-hold farmers in the country; over 25 percent of farm sizes in the country are less than 0.5 hectares in size.

CL: This may be true for farmers growing other major crops, but maize growers’ stand out. Over the past 20 years, substantial increase recorded in maize yield is equally attributable to introduction of hybrid technology and progressive behaviour of farmers. The core belt corn in Punjab is very closely knitted and appreciates the value-add gains from using high quality seeds.

Moreover, biotech companies have invested heavily in farmer education. Farmer literacy is a critical part of stewardship effort. Knowledge transfer programs accompanied introduction of hybrid varieties and continue to this day. Similarly, techno showcasing of GMO varieties has been conducted with up to thirty thousand corn growers.

Biotech companies also contribute to farming productivity by assisting farmers in improving agronomy; for example, training them to apply water, fertilizer and other inputs efficiently (both, timing and quantity).

This is because in contrast to domestic seed companies, biotech firms invest in R&D to achieve optimal agronomy. Maximum touch points in the form of learning centres have been established to ensure knowledge transfer to farmer. In absence of the support infrastructure, even the best hybrid variety may fail to achieve promised yield.

Moreover, success cases exist in other markets dominated by small-hold farmers. In Philippines for example, GM corn has penetrated over 90 percent market share. Small average farm size in the country is not an impediment.

Lastly, the delay in regulatory approvals has been a blessing in disguise. Successful trial runs at the learning centres during this period have already created a demand because farmers understand that overall cost of production will decline due to lower use of pesticides and labour. Within four to five years of introduction, GMO maize shall capture more than 90 percent of the market because the brand already enjoys credibility with the consumer.

BRR: On the flipside, is there a possibility that a sudden substantial increase in yield and output could lead to supply glut, lowering the price farmers can fetch in domestic commodity market?

CL: By 2021, it is projected that demand from poultry segment alone will reach 7 million tons. Whereas total production currently stands at only 6 million tons, of which seventy percent is consumed by poultry.

Keep in mind that higher output seen in recent years is also a result of traditionally cotton growing areas such as in district Vehari switching over to maize. This may not continue in future as the government appears to have refocused its energies on a reviving cotton crop. This happened in 2016-17 as well when area under cotton cultivation showed signs of improvement after the government announced a subsidy program.

If the so called “bonus acres” from cotton are excluded, maize output may not continue to grow with existing technology alone. Furthermore, government is also planning to subsidize oilseed crops, which may become a lucrative alternative to maize in spring season. Given the changing dynamics, poultry sector may not be able to sustain its double-digit growth unless corn productivity increases substantially.

Acreage can also not be extended substantially into southern regions, because the salinity of groundwater poses a risk. In most southern regions, canal irrigation water is received with delays, whereas maize crop requires critical two to three critical watering periods every five days during pollination.

Note that China is the second largest grower of maize by acreage, yet it is still a net importer due to high domestic demand from poultry segment. Last year, due to the trade war with the US, it expressed interest in importing corn from Pakistan. Yet we were unable to cater to that demand

So even if there is a surplus, Pakistan will be able to export to markets in China and other South East Asian countries. Moreover, demand for silage exports to Middle Eastern and African countries can also be catered to, as maize is a key ingredient.

Interactions with poultry associations may also inform this discussion. The segment is fast reaching a threshold where it becomes export competitive. And the ability to source home grown maize will be a key driver in future as well.

Compare this to the alternate scenario where a shortage of corn will not increase forex exposure on feed import, but also increase domestic poultry prices. Supply chain can also be easily managed locally compared to relying on bulk imports.

BRR: Focusing on exports, Rafhan Maize has given their view publicly that their exports may be compromised if GMO is introduced. The potential loss of export markets catering to conventional demand also needs to be accounted for.

CL: Bear in mind that Rafhan’s US-based principal Ingredion Inc. itself sources GM corn. So, the decision by Rafhan Maize reflects purely commercial apprehensions. It is true that a market for non-GMO corn exists in some countries, and they must receive a premium by catering to it.

Having said that, the non-GM maize export is down to just one company. Total value of Rafhan Maize exports is close to $3 million per annum, all of which is to Kenya which has zero GMO tolerance policy. If you work back their grain requirement for export, it is no more than six thousand tons, which can be easily managed.

The plan is to initially restrict GM maize to Punjab province only, even though KP also has substantial area under corn cultivation. Thus, Rafhan’s requirement can be easily sourced from KP. With proper regulatory certifications and labelling, their export shall remain unimpeded.

In contrast, Pakistan’s total export potential will become much greater once GM maize is introduced.

BRR: But it is not just Kenya that bans GMO. EU countries also have strict anti-GMO stance.

CL: That is not entirely accurate. Two types of approvals exist in EU countries. One is for GMO cultivation, and second is of food-feed processing. Countries such as Spain allow cultivation and therefore, automatically also allow food-feed processing.

EU is the second largest importer of genetically modified grain after China, which includes corn, soybean and others. However, EU parliament in a “non-binding decision” banned cultivation some years ago. While several countries wished to grow GM crops, because EU functions as a trading bloc, they are unable to do so. Countries such as Spain that consume all of their output domestically chose to grow it, without any repercussions.

There are only nine countries in the world today that have instated a blanket ban on GMO. Of these Russia is most prominent. In 2014, it took a commercial decision to become the hub of non-GMO agriculture, because they seek to cater to the organic niche.

The others are small African countries which are former French or Dutch colonies, with strong trade linkages with these EU countries. And they serve as Europe’s organic food basket.

BRR: But if countries in developed world have taken a stand against GMO cultivation, it stands to reason that it may pose risk to soil health. A clear divide exists across Atlantic on GMO, and one may be less inclined to believe that the American standard is more rooted in science given their ostrich mindset w.r.t climate change.

CL: View on GMOs in EU are informed more by ideology than science. Four countries in the region allow it, as does European Food Safety Authority. In this regard, the experience in France with glyphosate is very telling.

When EU approved glyphosate, a herbicide, French government in a political move hinted that it might instate a ban. However, it had to go back on its plan. Today the product may not be marketed to household consumers but is used freely by commercial and agriculture sectors. The government went on record and noted that their agriculture will become unsustainable if this herbicide is banned. That goes on to expose the pseudo-science behind the ideology.

Scientifically speaking, the difference between GMO and conventional seed is of an extra gene sequence, drawn from bacteria that is found in soil. It is this gene that produces resistance against pest invasions. The same principle is at work as in vaccines and antibiotics.

Logically speaking, because the plant gains resistance against insects, less nutritional value is lost. As a result, crops nutritional requirement from soil is lower not higher.

Moreover, GM crops are being cultivated across the world for over two decades. And no evidence has come forth noting that soil becomes barren or loses its productivity. Similarly, Bt. cotton is being grown in Pakistan for over 15 years, even if unofficially, and no complaints of land becoming uncultivable as a result have been made. Even though Pakistan has two crop seasons, compared to US and other countries, with only single crop per year.

(to be continued)