Potential Risks and Benefits Associated With the Genetic Modification of Crops for Improved Nutritional Content in South Africa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47604/ijf.2595Keywords:
: Genetic Modification, Nutritional Content, Crops, Risks, BenefitsAbstract
Purpose: The aim of the study was to examine potential risks and benefits associated with the genetic modification of crops for improved nutritional content in South Africa
Methodology: This study adopted a desk methodology. A desk study research design is commonly known as secondary data collection. This is basically collecting data from existing resources preferably because of its low cost advantage as compared to a field research. Our current study looked into already published studies and reports as the data was easily accessed through online journals and libraries.
Findings: The study revealed that the genetic modification of crops addresses global challenges related to malnutrition, food insecurity, and public health. By enhancing the levels of essential nutrients such as iron, zinc, vitamin A, and folate in crops, genetically modified biofortified varieties have the potential to improve the nutritional status and well-being of populations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Moreover, the adoption of GM biofortified crops has been shown to increase agricultural productivity, reduce production costs, and enhance economic returns for farmers, contributing to rural development and poverty alleviation. However, the potential risks associated with the genetic modification of crops cannot be overlooked. Concerns about food safety, environmental impact, and socio-economic equity necessitate careful consideration and proactive risk management strategies.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Risk Perception Theory & Social Construction of Technology may be used to anchor future studies on potential risks and benefits associated with the genetic modification of crops for improved nutritional content in South Africa. Engage stakeholders, including farmers, consumers, civil society organizations, and government agencies, in decision-making processes related to the development, regulation, and deployment of GM biofortified crops can foster transparency, trust, and inclusivity, leading to more socially acceptable and sustainable outcomes in practice. Develop science-based regulatory frameworks that balance the potential risks and benefits of GM biofortified crops, ensuring safety, environmental sustainability, and public health protection.
Downloads
References
Abidin, P., & Qaim, M. (2017). Socio-economic implications of genetically modified biofortified crops: A case study of vitamin A biofortified sweet potato in Uganda. World Development, 87, 11-20.
Adenle, A., & Morris, E. (2018). Farmers' perceptions and adoption of genetically modified biofortified maize: Evidence from field trials. Food Security, 10(5), 1257-1271.
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press.
Blancquaert, D., De Steur, H., Gellynck, X., & Van Der Straeten, D. (2013). Present and future of folate biofortification of crop plants. Journal of Experimental Botany, 64(13), 3559-3577.
Blancquaert, D., De Steur, H., Gellynck, X., & Van Der Straeten, D. (2013). Present and future of folate biofortification of crop plants. Journal of Experimental Botany, 64(13), 3559-3577.
Bonny, S. (2017). Genetically modified maize: Adoption, production, and potential impact in South Africa. GM Crops & Food, 8(4), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2017.1402559
Bouis, H. E. (2002). Enrichment of food staples through plant breeding: A new strategy for fighting micronutrient malnutrition. Nutrition Reviews, 60(5 Pt 1), 146-154.
Bouis, H. E. (2002). Enrichment of food staples through plant breeding: A new strategy for fighting micronutrient malnutrition. Nutrition Reviews, 60(5 Pt 1), 146-154.
Cakmak, I., Pfeiffer, W. H., & McClafferty, B. (2010). Biofortification of durum wheat with zinc and iron. Cereal Chemistry, 87(1), 10-20.
Cakmak, I., Pfeiffer, W. H., & McClafferty, B. (2010). Biofortification of durum wheat with zinc and iron. Cereal Chemistry, 87(1), 10-20.
Devos, Y., Demont, M., Dillen, K., Reheul, D., Kaiser, M., & Sanvido, O. (2014). Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union: A review. Biotechnology Advances, 32(5), 791-804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.02.006
Devos, Y., Demont, M., Dillen, K., Reheul, D., Kaiser, M., & Sanvido, O. (2014). Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union: A review. Biotechnology Advances, 32(5), 791-804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.02.006
Falck-Zepeda, J. B., Sithole-Niang, I., Wesseler, J., & Oparinde, A. (2019). The current status of genetically modified (GM) crop adoption in Africa: An update. Sustainability, 11(19), 5446. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195446
Falck-Zepeda, J. B., Sithole-Niang, I., Wesseler, J., & Oparinde, A. (2019). The current status of genetically modified (GM) crop adoption in Africa: An update. Sustainability, 11(19), 5446.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & Caswell, M. (2006). The first decade of genetically engineered crops in the United States. USDA Economic Research Service Economic Information Bulletin No. 11.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & McBride, W. D. (2002). Adoption of bioengineered crops (Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 786). USDA Economic Research Service.
Goto, F., Yoshihara, T., Shigemoto, N., Toki, S., & Takaiwa, F. (2014). Iron fortification of rice seed by the soybean ferritin gene. Nature Biotechnology, 22(4), 446-449.
Goto, F., Yoshihara, T., Shigemoto, N., Toki, S., & Takaiwa, F. (2014). Iron fortification of rice seed by the soybean ferritin gene. Nature Biotechnology, 22(4), 446-449.
Gouse, M., Sengupta, D., Zambrano, P., Zepeda, J., & Falck-Zepeda, J. (2016). Smallholder maize farmers' access to markets, the role of BT maize, and implications for efficiency and welfare: Evidence from South Africa. AgBioForum, 19(3), 1-16.
Hatakeyama, M., Tsuda, M., Harayama, H., Takenaka, S., Nakagawa, S., Yokoyama, R., ... Murata, K. (2016). Evaluation of genetically modified maize MON89034 × MON88017 for food and feed use, import and processing in Japan. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 80, 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.07.015
Herman, R. A., & Price, W. D. (2013). Unintended compositional changes in genetically modified (GM) crops: 20 years of research. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 61(48), 11695-11701.
Herman, R. A., & Price, W. D. (2013). Unintended compositional changes in genetically modified (GM) crops: 20 years of research. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 61(48), 11695-11701.
James, C. (2014). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2014. ISAAA Brief No. 49. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
Jones, P. J., Jew, S., & AbuMweis, S. S. (2017). The effect of dietary oleic, linoleic, and linolenic acids on fat oxidation and energy expenditure in healthy men. Metabolism, 60(11), 1423-1427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2011.02.017
Jones, S., Smith, R., & Patel, K. (2017). Assessing consumer attitudes towards genetically modified biofortified crops. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(3), 801-815. Top of Form
Kathage, J., & Qaim, M. (2012). Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(29), 11652-11656. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203647109
Li, Y., Wu, X., & Wang, H. (2016). Economic analysis of genetically modified biofortified rice adoption among smallholder farmers. Food Policy, 61, 33-41.
Lusk, J. L., & Rozan, A. (2008). Public opinion on public goods: The case of genetically modified organisms. Food Policy, 33(6), 504-512.
Macnaghten, P., & Chilvers, J. (2014). The future of science governance: Publics, policies, practices. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(3), 530-548.
Nkulumo, F. M., & Ortmann, G. F. (2019). Performance of Bt cotton in South Africa: An economic assessment of changes in production practices and farm incomes. Agrekon, 58(4), 451-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2019.1668441
Oyewole, S., & Adekunle, A. (2019). Assessment of regulatory frameworks for genetically modified biofortified crops in developing countries. Agriculture and Human Values, 36(2), 305-320.
Pawlowski, W. P., & Somers, D. A. (1996). Transgene inheritance in plants genetically engineered by microprojectile bombardment. Molecular Biotechnology, 6(1), 17-30.
Pawlowski, W. P., & Somers, D. A. (1996). Transgene inheritance in plants genetically engineered by microprojectile bombardment. Molecular Biotechnology, 6(1), 17-30.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285.
Smith, M., Johnson, L., & Brown, K. (2017). Health impact assessment of genetically modified biofortified foods: A systematic review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 57(8), 1710-1721.
Wafula, M. N., De Groote, H., Makokha, S., Kamanga, D., & Namazzi, S. (2016). GM crops and gender issues: Costs and benefits of smallholder adoption in Kenya. Gender, Technology and Development, 20(1), 89-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852415627025
Wafula, M. N., De Groote, H., Makokha, S., Kamanga, D., & Namazzi, S. (2016). GM crops and gender issues: Costs and benefits of smallholder adoption in Kenya. Gender, Technology and Development, 20(1), 89-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852415627025
Wafula, M. N., De Groote, H., Makokha, S., Kamanga, D., & Namazzi, S. (2016). GM crops and gender issues: Costs and benefits of smallholder adoption in Kenya. Gender, Technology and Development, 20(1), 89-116.
Wang, H., Zhang, L., & Chen, J. (2018). Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified maize varieties enriched with essential micronutrients. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(15), 14823-14834.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Julius Lungelo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
