Twenty years of varieties use: Lessons learnt Michel.fok@cirad

Twenty years of GM varieties use: Lessons learnt

Dr. Michel FOK

CIRAD (France) and ICRA

[email protected]

The use of Genetically modified varieties (GMV) dates back to 1997 and spreads to 26 countries out

of which 18 are recording more than 50,000 ha and 11 more than one millions hectares. According to

ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri‐biotech Applications), the sole source of stats

related to the use of GM varieties, the total acreage covered has been increasing continuously over

the period of twenty years, as well as the number of countries concerned. This quantitative evolution

is claimed to be a clear indication of the global positive impacts of the use of GM varieties. This

criterion is complemented by other claims related to the global decrease of the pesticides use, global

production increase and economic gain and reduction of greenhouse gas emission.

The positive impacts claimed at global level are encountered also at the individual level of a country

such as Australia. The country specificity of high yield has been preserved. The savings in the

insecticide use is claimed to be the most positive impact of GMV use. This savings resulting from

GMV use is illustrated by the reduction of the amount of active ingredient per hectare, but the shift

to new generation of insecticide ingredients which are effective at much lower dosage has

contributed as well, if not more than the GMV use.

There are nevertheless negative impacts which are well documented and which used to be

overlooked by those who advocate a further extension of the use of GMV. Where pest resistant GMV

are used, the pest complexes have shifted and have implied the need to chemically control pests

whose earlier infestation level did not require. Where herbicide tolerant GMV have been used

(mainly tolerant to glyphosate), glyphosate resistant weeds have emerged, with a continuously

increasing number of weed species. The resulting increase of the pesticide control cost, along the

high and increasing cost of seeds, has implied a reduction if not a reversion of the profitability in

using GMV. Australia is a rare exception of country where the mentioned negative impacts are not

documented, thanks to a particular coordination among a small total number of cotton growers

(around 1,000), which nevertheless has not prevented them to pay the highest fees for the right of

using GMV.

Lessons from the effects observed are fourfold. First, it is worth debating again the issue of

effectiveness of the genes used so far in GMV, by distinguishing short term and mid‐term effects, as

the effects could reverse 5‐6 years after the commercial release of the varieties. Second, the

assessment of the impacts of GMV which overlooks distinct short term and mid‐term effects, as

those commonly implemented globally or at the level of a country, does not help to capture reality

and could be misguiding. Third, the ecosystem reacts to the way GMV are being used; the pest

complex shift and the emergence of weeds resistant to herbicides are illustrations of ecological

reactions to the mis‐management of GMV use based on general and continuous use. Fourth, if GMV

were to be used, the best way is partial use.

02/02/2018

1

20 Years of GM varieties useLessons learnt

Michel [email protected]

13th Meeting of the Inter‐regional Cooperative researche network on cotton for the Mediterranean and Middle East regions

Luxor, Egypt, February 2‐6, 2018

Michel FOK, Luxor, Egypt, Feb. 2018 1

Presentation plan

• The use of GM varieties sounds good

• Negative impacts observed too

• Lessons to retain


02/02/2018

2

The use of GM varieties sounds good

• At the world level

– Information extracted from ISAAA

• International Service for the Acquisition of Agri‐BiotechApplications

• Report freely available at http://www.isaaa.org


Acreage is continuously increasing


02/02/2018

3

Use is encountered in all continents…with 5 major countries


Four major GM crops in the world


Soybean

Corn

Cotton

Canola

02/02/2018

4

Herbicide tolerance accounts much more than insect resistance in commercial use


Almost exclusively 2 types of GM varieties

Herbicide tolerance

Insect resistance

Very high economicimpacts are claimed


Productivity

Production cost

02/02/2018

5

Positive environment impacts by the reduction of pesticide use


The use of GM varieties sounds good

• At the level of a specific country

– Australia: A clear but particular case

• Information extracted from the presentation of Mr. Michael Murray, Cotton Australia, in Tashkent, October, 2017


02/02/2018

6

Dramatic decrease of insecticide use and of the cost to control pests, Australia


Huge reduction of the amount of insecticide active ingredients per ha, Australia

…but the insecticide active ingredients have also evolved a lot, beingeffective at a much lower amount


02/02/2018

7

Sequence of genes used for herbicide tolerance and insect resistance, Australia


Australia: Continuously ranking 1st in yield


02/02/2018

8

Great decrease of insecticide sprays vs Bt targeted pests in USA

• Heliothine sprays

Leonard, 2010 (Cotton Beltwide conferences, New Orleans)Michel FOK, Luxor, Egypt, Feb. 2018 15

Decrease of chemical controls in China

• Number of insecticide sprays for CBW (grey points) and all insect pests (black points) on cotton

1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Lu, Y., Wu, K.et al. (2012). Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services. Nature, 487, 362–366.


02/02/2018

9

Impacts on yield is variable between countries

• No direct yield impact from herbicide tolerance

• Yield impact from insect resistance is variable

– According to countries

• Yield increase is higher in developing countries wherechemical control was not optimal

– According to the period considered

• Yield might increase in the short term, but coulddecrease in the mid‐term


Pressure reduction in all countries Bt effectiveness

• Bt targeted pest pressure – Documented in all countries using Bt varieties

– No (not yet?) or rare case of pest resistance to Bt toxins

• Exception = India (single Bt gene for a while)


02/02/2018

10

Negative impacts observed

• Negative trend: need for more chemicalcontrols

– pests not targted by Bt toxins

– weeds resistant to glyphosate


New ennemies have emerged in several major cotton countries

• Well documented: USA, China, India


02/02/2018

11

A bug in using GM:Bugs, new threat in US cotton fields

…but alsoaphids, jassids…Michel FOK, Luxor, Egypt, Feb. 2018 21

India


02/02/2018

12

Evolution of the number of glyphosate‐resistant species of weeds in th USA


The increase of weed resistance to glyphosate is impressive worldwide


In 2016: out of 40 resistantspeciesrecorded,

17 are found in the USA

02/02/2018

13

Ironically more herbicides are being used resistant weeds management

RoundUp + 2 others

3 others + surfactant



RoundUp + 2 others

RoundUp + 2 others

RoundUp + 6 distinct other herbicides

RoundUp Ready Plus (resistant weed management program of Monsanto)Recommendations for a location in Georgia State


Special focus on China

• Number of insecticide sprays for CBW (grey points) and all insect pests (black points) on cotton

1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Lu, Y., Wu, K.et al. (2012). Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services. Nature, 487, 362–366.


02/02/2018

14

Farmers perceived an increased infestation of pestsnot targeted by Bt‐cotton

27

2006 0,0% 99,1% 12,3% 54,7%

2007 3,0% 82,3% 11,3% 62,1%

2008 11,5% 61,2% 10,3% 56,8%

2009 11,0% 59,3% 6,3% 73,0%

2010 30,0% 40,4% 21,0% 46,7%

2011 11,2% 46,9% 10,7% 58,6%

2012 11,3% 33,5% 6,5% 75,7%

Opinions according to infestation levels

Mirids Aphis g.

Annual urveys conducted in HebeiAnswers to the question about the evolution of pest infestations over the 5 last years

Michel FOK, Luxor, Egypt, Feb. 2018

Chinese farmers no longer happy with Bt cotton

Share of farms unhappy with Bt cotton

regarding effectiveness, % 56.9regarding profitability, % 76.0

Share of farmers finding that bollworm infestation has decreased 35,1lygus infestation has increased 46,9aphis infestation has increased 58,6

Wang & FokHebei province, China. Survey in 2011.

Among 262 farmers surveyed


02/02/2018

15

Effect against pests not so much lasting

29

Hebei province, Yellow River Valley, survey in 2011

Number of sprays 10.8Number of "chemical controls" 20.3vs bollworms 6.1vs mirids 2.8vs aphis 7.8vs red spider 2.7vs 3 main sucking pests 13.3vs other pests 0.9


Effect against pests not so much lasting

30

Early spray against aphidsHebei Province, 2006


02/02/2018

16

Increased costs to control pests

31Michel FOK, Luxor, Egypt, Feb. 2018

32

Effect geographically localized


Cotton area share in 3 cotton production regions

02/02/2018

17

Lessons to retain

• 1. Effectiveness must be debated by considering short term and mid‐term effects

– Valid both for pest resistance and herbicide tolerance

– Short term: Good

– Mid term: much less good if not bad


2. Global and a‐phased assessmentsare misguiding

• Assessment of GM use must be contextspecific

– According to country

– Depending on time

• …but not the case for most of the availableassessments


02/02/2018

18

3. The use of GM must anticipatereaction from the cropping eco‐system

• GM use is an action on an eco‐system

• Action implies reaction– Stronger is the action, stronger is the reaction

• The effect reversal observed in mid‐term isindicative of the reaction of the eco‐system– Resulting from a generalized and continuous use of GM

• The use of GM must anticipate possible reaction by eco‐system


4. Best use of GM is reasoned partial use

• Option opposed to general and continuoususe

• Partial use ?

– Combine the use of GM with non‐GM: co‐existence

– The balance of the combination could/shouldfluctuate over time


02/02/2018

19

Thank you for your attention


Twenty years of varieties use: Lessons learnt Michel.fok@cirad

Documents

Transcript of Twenty years of varieties use: Lessons learnt Michel.fok@cirad