Genetically Modified Crops: a US Farmer's Versus an EU Citizen's Point of View

Abstract

Genetically modified (GM) crops have been widely adopted by American farmers. Mainly two traits, herbicide resistance and insect resistance, constitute the area of GM crops. The commercial success of these crops derives from benefits in farm management and more generally from greater efficiency in production. European population surveys continue to show widespread opposition to GM crops and other applications of gene technology in food production. Danish focus group interviews reveal general concerns that seem to form the basis for the negative perception of GM crops. The aim of the paper is to explain why American farmers and European citizens adopt opposing attitudes to GM crops. It is argued that there is a clear conflict of interest between the two groups. At present GM crops provide no genuine benefits to the consumer, who is therefore unwilling to run even very small risks arising from the use of gene technology in food production. European citizens also connect GM crops with intensive agricultural practices, which are perceived as unsustainable. Here values may diverge, but discussion about sustainable agriculture is not primarily about GM crops: it is much broader.

Keywords:

• bioethics
• genetic engineering
• herbicide-resistant crops
• Bt-resistant crops
• focus group interviews
• public concerns

1 Introduction

First generation GM crops were developed for agronomic traits such as herbicide resistance or insect resistance. Biotechnology companies therefore targeted their marketing strategies at farmers, and in particular farmers’ profitability expectations (EU, 2000). Since 1996 farmers in the USA, Canada and Argentina have rapidly adopted genetically modified (GM) crops. In 2001, 71% of the US and 98% of the Argentinean soybean area was sown with GM varieties. In Canada the figure for GM canola was 61% (James, 2001). The 2002 statistics from the USA indicate that 75% of the area devoted to soybean, 34% to corn, and 71% to cotton was sown with GM varieties in 2002. The US area of GM corn was temporarily reduced in 2000 and 2001, but increased again in 2002 (James, 2001; NASS, 2002).

The very small area sown with commercial GM crops in the European Union (EU), i.e. 20,500 ha of GM corn in 2001 (TransGen, 2002), contrasts starkly with the high American adoption rates. A large proportion of the European public opposes the involvement of gene technology in food production. Although a new directive on marketing and experimental release of genetically modified crops has been passed (Anonymous, 2001), this opposition will probably prevent further approvals for marketing of GM organisms until reliable legislation on labelling and traceability of GM products has been adopted.

The overwhelming opposition to GM crops in Europe is often referred to as emotional, and even religious. The view that GM crops are risky or ‘unnatural’ is put forward even when the narrow scientific/technical risk assessment performed by the authorities has concluded that these crops are safe for human health and the environment. However, the general public may have a much broader conception of risk than that deployed by scientists and technicians, and in order to initiate a dialogue about the benefits and risks associated with GM crops this conception must be addressed.

Our case studies of herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant crops should clarify the basis of the differing perceptions of American farmers and European citizens. This approach may also set an agenda for a discussion that is broad enough to allow the main worries of the European public to be brought forward in a transparent manner, without appearing to be ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘religious’ in character. Thus we hope to reveal and explore an area of shared values or common ethical ground on which the farmer and the citizen can meet and have a meaningful discussion.

2 Attitudes and expectations relating to GM crops

The largest US farming body, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), states in its official policy documents that it supports agricultural biotechnology and the scientifically based risk assessments performed by US government agencies. It also supports a science-based labelling policy, which means that unless the food is significantly different from its traditional counterpart, or a specific constituent is altered, it need not be labelled. It is, however, supportive of voluntary labelling recording whether or not gene technology has been used in the production process of an agricultural and food product provided this is based on a clear and factual certification process. At an international level, the AFBF opposes foreign import restrictions, labelling or segregation requirements relating to any genetically modified organism that has been certified by the scientific community as safe and not significantly different from other varieties of the relevant commodity. It believes that the EU has used the precautionary principle to slow the approval process for GM varieties of both corn and soybean. It also opposes ratification of the International Biodiversity Treaty (AFBF, 2001).

These policy statements may reflect a positive attitude towards GM crops within the US farming community. However, they do not indicate why most farmers have so rapidly adopted GM crops. A better indication of the individual farmer's reasons for adopting these crops can be found in farm surveys. In a 1997 survey, conducted by the Agricultural Resource Management Study, the majority (54–76%) of farmers indicated that “increased yields through improved pest control” were the main reason for adopting GM crops. A second reason, “decreased pesticide costs” was given by 19–42%. Only 1.8–6.4% stated “increased planting flexibility” as their main reason for favouring GM crops (Fernandez-Cornejo & McBride, 2000). A 1998 survey of 800 Iowa farmers showed similar conclusions. In total 53% of the GM soybean farmers referred to increased yields through improved pest control, 27% to decreasing pesticide costs, and 12% mentioned increased flexibility in planting as the reason for growing GM soybean. Similarly, 77% stated that they had planted Bt-corn to increase yields, followed by 7% who stated that decreased pesticide costs were the main reason for adopting Bt-corn (Duffy, 1999). A somewhat different result was obtained by Firbanks & Forcella (2000), who, on the basis of an informal survey among weed scientists, concluded that farmers adopted GM soybean not because it allowed more effective weed management, but because such management is simpler to conduct (fewer herbicides, fewer applications, and less critical timing).

On the other side of the Atlantic in the European Union one of the large-scale surveys, the so-called Eurobarometers (INRA 2000; Gaskell et al., 2000), showed that genetically modified food, together with animal cloning and GM crops, is the application of biotechnology with the lowest level of support. For example, on average only 42% of those asked “mostly or totally agreed” that the use of modern biotechnology in the production of insect-resistant crops should be encouraged (INRA, 2000). Support for GM crops has also declined since the previous survey in 1996. Support for most medical applications of modern biotechnology, e.g. for the production of medicines and genetic testing, remains stronger. Thus one of the important findings of the Eurobarometer surveys is that it is not gene technology as such that causes opposition, but rather particular applications of it. The surveys show, moreover, that scepticism is not caused simply by a lack or shortage of information. Instead the relation between knowledge and attitude is more complex. More knowledge makes people form a definite opinion about biotechnology. It drives out indecision. But this opinion can be for or against (BEP, 1997). In some countries, like Denmark and Sweden, the net result is that, with an increased level of knowledge, a larger proportion of the population makes up its mind negatively, and so the proportion of people against GM food rises. Recent focus group interviews conducted in Denmark suggest that the issues raised by GM foods include freedom of choice for the consumer, respect for nature, and democratic control over the development and application of technology (Lassen et al., 2002a).

Why should US farmers be concerned by the negative attitude of a majority of European citizens? Less than 1% of US export of corn and below 4% of US exports of cotton are imported by the European Union. This leaves soybean as the only major export crop that is largely grown with GM-produced cultivars: approximately 20–25% of US exports of this crop is destined for the EU (NASS, 2001; USDA-NASS, 2002). US soybean exports to the EU have declined slightly, and meanwhile imports from Argentina have risen. As the proportion of GM soybean in Argentina is much higher than in USA, this shift cannot be attributed to a reluctance to import GM soybeans (EU, 2000). The EU is the world's leading importer of soybeans and soymeal. Of the soybeans produced in Brazil, Argentina and USA, 40%, 50% and 10–15%, respectively, are exported to the EU. Most of the imported soybean and soymeal is used for animal feed (EU, 2000). GM soybean may be used as feed for farm animals without labelling requirements for the resultant meat and dairy products. This has led the Danish Greenpeace movement to analyse the content of GM crops in eight different varieties of feed used in Denmark. All of the tested feed contained GM soybean (Greenpeace, 2001).

To summarise, GM crops have been positively received and rapidly adopted by US farmers owing to their expectation of improved yields and pest control, decreased pesticide costs and more flexible management practices. In the policy statements of the major grower associations GM crops are strongly supported. These associations oppose strict labelling requirements for GM crops and GM foods, although there may well be different views on these matters among US farmers. In the European Union, which is an important market, especially for soybean, large parts of the general public oppose GM crops. The question is: why the disparity?

3 Usefulness

Usefulness is a prerequisite of the acceptance of gene technology. At least two definitions of usefulness could, however, be given: on the one hand that the crop is commercially viable to the producer, and on the other that it fulfils important societal needs.

In view of the commercial success of GM crops in the Americas, it might be argued that GM crops are commercially viable even though the general profitability of GM crops to US farmers is not easily assessed, and even though these farmers must meet a number of constraints, namely: seed-saving is not permitted, the cost of seed and of royalties for technology agreement is increased, and fewer suppliers provide the input for crop production (EU, 2000).

The counterbalancing advantages differ depending on the crop in question. With the introduction of Bt-corn, farmers are now able to control the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner)), an insect which was very difficult to control with conventional insecticides. It is estimated that less than 5% of the traditional corn area was treated with insecticides directed at this insect prior to the introduction of Bt-corn. The primary benefit has therefore been an increase in yield, and this increase depends on the level of infestation (Carpenter & Gianessi, 2001).

The major impact of the adoption of Bt-cotton has been a 10–14% reduction in insecticide use, supplemented by larger yields (amounting to 2–19% increase over conventional yields) and a rise in net return of 52 USD ha⁻¹ (median based on 5 studies) (Carpenter & Gianessi, 2001).

The adoption of bromoxynil- and glyphosate-resistant varieties of cotton has been driven by the ease and convenience of avoiding early directed post-emergence herbicide applications. Prior to 1995 no herbicides were available for such post-emergence weed control in cotton. Farmers had to apply non-selective herbicides and avoid contact with the growing crop. Bromoxynil-resistant cotton was introduced in 1995. This herbicide can be used even if it makes contact with the crop. However, it controls only broadleaf weed species. In 1996 a new selective herbicide called Pyrithiobac was marketed, and in 1997 glyphosate-resistant cotton was introduced. In the US, glyphosate-resistant cotton accounted for 54% of the land devoted to cotton in 2000. The glyphosate-resistant varieties are, however, not totally resistant, and directed post-emergence treatments must be made prior to the four-leaf stage of the cotton (Carpenter & Gianessi, 2001).

According to Carpenter & Gianessi (2001), glyphosate-resistant soybean has been adopted principally for the simplicity of a weed control programme with only one herbicide and without crop injury or restrictions of succeeding rotational crops. Furthermore, the timing of the application is more flexible. Costs of weed control programmes have decreased in both conventional and GM soybean, due to reduced prices of herbicides as a result of the introduction of glyphosate-resistant soybean. The number of herbicide applications is estimated to have declined by 12% from 1995 to 1999. However, when this is measured in terms of the total quantity of active ingredients used there seems to be an increase. In 2000, 1100 of 3000 soybean varieties were glyphosate-resistant (Anderson, 2001). The benefits of glyphosate-resistant soybean have been challenged by Benbrook (2001), who claims that herbicide use in these crops measured in active ingredient has increased by up to 30% over that in conventional soybean in several US states, because farmers, in response to the lower prices of glyphosate are applying at higher rates. Increasing herbicide use relating to US soybean may partly be explained by the increased area sown with this crop (Carpenter & Gianessi, 2001) and by the fact that it is difficult to isolate the effects of adoption of GM crops because other factors contribute to changes in pesticide use (Heimlich et al., 2000). Furthermore, according to Benbrook (2001) there is evidence that glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivars produce 5–10% lower yields than identical non-GM varieties. A survey of 800 Iowa farmers reported that the net returns of glyphosate-resistant and conventional soybean varieties were the same (Duffy, 1999). The American Soybean Association has responded that glyphosate-resistant soybean protects the environment through changes in tillage practices and herbicide application, and that through improved weed control farmers are producing cleaner crops containing fewer non-grain materials (Anderson, 2001). In many parts of the world soil erosion due to tillage practices is a problem. Improved weed management in GM herbicide resistant crops allows farmers to reduce tillage practices and thereby reduce soil erosion, which benefits both the farmer and the environment (Duke, 2002).

The general advantages seem to be connected with the fact that GM crops enable the farmer to employ a more flexible and easier management strategy, which has allowed many farmers to reduce costs, rather than increase yields as indicated in the above surveys. In this aspect there seems to be a minor discrepancy in farmers’ previous expectations and the current reality. Despite these uncertainties about the benefits at farm level, the GM crops currently being grown have undoubtedly been useful from the farmers’ point of view. When members of the general public insist that GM crops must be useful, they typically seem to have the second definition in mind, i.e. that GM crops are only acceptable if they fulfil important societal needs. It is apparent that a GM crop may fulfil societal needs in several ways: 1) by giving us more healthy food, 2) by mitigating the environmental impact of agriculture, 3) by producing raw materials which at present require costly industrial processing, or 4) by improving the situation in Third World countries and feeding a rising world population. Herbicide- and insect-resistant crops have been developed chiefly for agronomic benefits and thus the usefulness of these crops has not been obvious to the general public in Europe. Accordingly, in recent Danish focus group interviews the argument in favour of these crops felt to be most persuasive was their potential to improve the situation in the Third World. However, even this argument failed to persuade many of those who believe that there are other forces driving the technological development and/or that the possible benefits will not reach the Third World (Lassen et al., 2002a).

It has been argued that, by using herbicide-resistant crops, we will be able to use pesticides of an environmentally more benign kind than formerly. However, the environmental argument has not gained public support in Europe, probably because pesticides are perceived as a highly controversial technology: there is widespread public anxiety about their side-effects on human health and environment. This worry has been reinforced by the many findings concerning pesticides and their break-down products in drinking water. Herbicide-resistant crops require these chemicals to be used, of course, and many people therefore automatically regard them as offering a non-sustainable path for the future. By contrast organic agriculture, or at least agriculture based upon minimal use of chemicals and fertilisers etc., is thought to be sustainable.

More obvious benefits of GM crops, benefits accruing not only to primary producers but also to the general public, will probably be a prerequisite of wider acceptance of GM crops within the EU. In the absence of such benefits the typical EU citizen is reluctant to take even small risks.

4 Risks

The potential risks associated with GM crops are often divided into two categories: risk to human (or animal) health, and risk to the environment. The risks to human health most often relate to worries that GM crops contain toxic or allergenic compounds. Risks to the environment are often less easily assessed, since on the one hand they range from risk relating to the preservation of genetic diversity and the composition of natural landscape, and on the other hand to agricultural concerns such as the risk of GM crops causing uncontrollable weeds or insects to develop. To the US farmer, health concerns do not seem to be an issue, because these crops have undergone a scientific risk assessment prior to release. However, with regard to Bt-crops many farmers seem to realise the importance of adequate resistance management strategies in avoiding the development of resistant insects (Biotech Knowledge Center, 2001). Resistance to Bt-toxins has already been documented in populations of insects belonging to several species. The resistance traits are often recessively inherited, but semi-dominance or even dominant inheritance has also been observed (Frutos et al., 1999). To prevent the emergence of Bt-resistant insects, the US Environmental Protection Agency recommends setting up refuges next to Bt-fields. Refuges are populated by non-Bt host plants that are managed to provide sufficient numbers of susceptible adult insects to mate with potential Bt-resistant insects and in this way to dilute the frequency of resistance genes (EPA/USDA, 1999). Refuges work best when they allow for field-to-field movements of insects, when there is recessive inheritance of the resistance trait, when there is random mating of adults and no treatment in refuge areas (Frutos et al., 1999). In the US Bt-corn areas, a ‘unified plan’ requires a 20% refuge in the Corn Belt and a 50% refuge in areas of overlapping corn and cotton production. Furthermore, the refuge must be located within a specified distance of the Bt-cornfields. A survey of 501 Bt-corn growers in September 2000, ordered by the agrochemical industries, showed that 87% planted at least 20% of their corn to non-Bt, and that 82% planted their refuge less than half a mile from their Bt-corn. These results indicate that Bt-corn growers recognise that insect resistance management is needed if the benefits of this technology are to be preserved (Biotech Knowledge Center, 2001).

In herbicide-resistant crops, optimal weed control requires sequential applications with glyphosate, and the timing relative to weed emergence is important (Swanton et al., 2000). When glyphosate is sprayed 2–3 times annually at higher rates it imposes a high selection pressure on the weed flora, which in 5–8 years may lead to shifts in weed composition towards species with higher resistance to glyphosate (Benbrook, 2001; Shaner, 2000). Following this shift, other herbicides may be needed to control these weeds (Shaner, 2000). Payne & Oliver (2000) suggest implementing conventional, post-emergence herbicides in the weed control programme for glyphosate-resistant soybean to assist with the control of weeds that glyphosate has less impact upon, such as hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata (Raf.) cory), morning glory (Ipomoea spp.) species or waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer). Furthermore, it may become difficult to control volunteer crops in subsequent years. Thus, if farmers grow glyphosate-resistant varieties of both corn and soybean in a soybean-corn rotation, then glyphosate cannot control the volunteer corn, which can be a serious weed problem in soybean (Shaner, 2000).

Some uses of GM crops appear to be safe so far as ecological risks are concerned, when these are judged by normal scientific standards (Madsen & Sandøe, 2001), and no serious health hazards have so far been identified in the use of GM crops for food production. However, these assessments have been met with distrust, first of all because the European public has a low level of trust in information coming from the authorities who performed them (INRA, 2000), and secondly because the assessments are often associated with a lack of information on both risks and benefits and a high degree of uncertainty about the likelihood with which these might occur (Wolfenbarger & Phifer, 2000). Even among scientists there is no agreement on this issue. From the same quarter it is often argued that moving genes between distant organisms that would never interbreed in natural circumstances might have completely unknown effects, and that these may only be identifiable through long-term monitoring.

The terminology of risk has developed within discourses on GM crops. Of these discourses, that of regulatory risk has so far been most prevalent. Within the regulatory discourse, risk is defined in either environmental or health terms. Both kinds of risk are seen as a proper subject of study and scientific measurement. Public discourse about GM crops, however, is much more diverse. It is associated with a wider range of values and therefore a more inclusive conception of risk, e.g. Levidow & Carr, (1997). This conception includes many concerns and uncertainties in predicting long-term effects.

If we apply this broader interpretation of risk, a familiar argument draws attention to the dominant market position enjoyed by multinational agrochemical corporations. These companies have acquired several plant-breeding companies in order to link seed production to agrochemicals: the three top agrochemical companies were also the three top seed companies in 1997 (EU, 2000). And this monopoly may lead to the loss of both traditional crop varieties and long-standing farm management methods. If this were to occur, then despite the obvious benefits of new GM crops, the food supply could become vulnerable to slight changes in the behaviour, e.g. the resistance, of pests such as pathogens, insects and weeds. That the presence and behaviour of large consortiums is a concern to European consumers was clearly demonstrated by the controversy following Monsanto's attempt to introduce GM soybean on the European market in 1996 (Lassen et al., 2002b). The concern raised in this context is primarily related to the influence that large multinational companies have on the market and hence the consumer's freedom of choice. This perception may, however, be shared by some US farmers.

Some people see gene technology as a threat to the natural order, violating the integrity of nature, or even as an attempt to assume the role of the Creator. These allegations may, however, be interpreted in a more down-to-earth manner. The pleas for naturalness, integrity and against playing God may particularly express a general unease about consequences of GM crops that are not captured in existing assessments. This unease may be nourished by a general distrust of scientists and the public authorities who perform the risk assessments, because the GM crop may be unfamiliar at the plant or molecular level to currently grown crops, which in turn makes the assessment less certain (Madsen et al., 2002). One step towards bringing the two opposing views closer would be to encourage a broader public discussion of the limited nature of our ability to anticipate and handle biological risks. Such a discussion would surely also reveal very divergent views.

5 Freedom to choose

It may be that individuals, or groups of individuals, will not accept the risks arising from GM food unless they are involved in choosing whether or not to run those risks.

In the US the general attitude towards GM food is quite positive; however, surveys show that there is a significant number of people who find the technology risky, against nature or that it will not bring about benefits to a large number of people (Priest, 2000). This, combined with increasing opposition in other parts of the world, may lead to demands for the segregation of GM crops and non-GM crops, and the introduction of identity-preservation and traceability in connection with exports and/or domestic consumption. Such measures increase costs. They may therefore result in different prices for GM crops and non-GM crops, and this differentiation may lead to crops being grown under contract. Identity-preservation has been estimated to represent a cost of 6–17% of farm-gate price (EU, 2000).

At present the market for non-GM corn and soybean is approximately 1% and 2% of the US production, respectively, but the demand for non-biotech corn and soybean is highly fluid and could quickly expand depending on the evolution of consumer preferences. The US grain processing companies are therefore concerned, not only about corn exports, but also more importantly about exports of processed by-products such as corn gluten feed and meal. A 1999 survey by Spark Companies of 1000 Midwest grain elevators showed that 11% were differentiating non-GM corn and 8% were differentiating non-GM soybean. A 2000 poll by Reuters of 400 US farmers found that 15% of the farmers have made, or are planning to make, the necessary investments to segregate GM crops from traditional crops (Lin & Chambers, 2000).

In Europe, food manufacturers and retailers have moved to meet the demand for non-GM food by adopting a restrictive stand on GM food labelling and the phasing out of ingredients produced by genetic engineering. Within the EU there is at present no labelling requirement for products deriving from animals fed with GM feed, but if such a requirement was adopted the implications for the soybean market could be significant (EU, 2000).

Consumers can only choose whether or not to buy GM food products if these products are labelled. At an international level, the predominant view until now has been that labelling is only required if the end product is substantially different from a non-GM product. This view has caused a good deal of scepticism because, to some people, the mere use of genetic engineering in food processing makes an important difference even where the foreign DNA or proteins resulting from it cannot technically be measured. This view was prevalent in the Danish focus group interviews.

Within the EU, the current Novel Food Directive states that unless it is possible to measure genetically modified DNA, or products from this DNA, and unless there is more than a 1% content of genetically modified product per ingredient, no labelling is required. However, from the consumer's point of view, it may be desirable to extend the labelling requirements to include food which, while it no longer contains genetically engineered compounds, was produced using this technology. In response to this, the EU Council very recently made a political agreement on further labelling requirements of GMOs in food and feed, which extends the labelling requirements so that all food and food ingredients directly produced from GMOs in the future will be labelled (Anonymous, 2002). Stringent labelling requirements may, however, discourage retailers from stocking genetically engineered food products in view of the likely increased costs. A rise in cost would arise partly because two selections of each product might have to be available: one produced with, and one produced without, the use of genetic engineering; and partly because costly tracking systems would have to be put in place to verify the identity of the crop (EU, 2000). At this point it is difficult to predict which strategy will be more profitable in the long run where GM crops exported to the European market are concerned. The official policy of the AFBF is certainly, at present, against a labelling system based on technology; and the issue of labelling clearly reflects a conflict of interest between consumers, who want choice with regard to food types, and producers, who may have to bear the increased costs of segregation measures.

6 Discussion and conclusion

From the foregoing discussion the following issues can be identified as central to the controversies over GM food. The vast areas sown with GM crops in the Americas have until now been genetically engineered to contain agronomic traits that offer easier management strategies and greater profitability to farmers. Some of these crops may also decrease overall pesticide use and make it possible to replace environmentally suspect pesticides with less environmentally suspect ones. The benefits are, however, felt by farmers in the Americas and not by the European consumer who buys comestibles produced by GM technology. Moreover, most people have the attitude that if it is not entirely clear either that they, or a certain kind of environment, e.g. wild undisturbed areas, or the poor of the Third World, will benefit from GM food products, then even a very small risk is not worth running.

The fierce public debate in Europe has lead to overwhelming negative attitudes towards GM crops and indeed the whole idea of GM food has here been stigmatised.

Judging from focus group interviews and the experiences from organically produced foods, people want to make choices that are sensitive to the way in which food has been produced. This demand has to a large extent been met by the EU Council in the recent political agreement, which states that genetically modified products must be labelled according to production processes rather than contents. This requirement is, in turn, likely to impose greater costs on farmers, since the relevant tracking systems will be expensive, although at this point in time it is not clear who will bear the increased costs.

On the matter of benefits versus risks and freedom of choice, there may well be conflicts of interest between the farmers and those who buy their products, but it is not necessarily based on an ethical disagreement about GM crops. Rather, it stems from the European citizen's perception that his, or her, concerns about risks are not outweighed by the usefulness of GM crops.

The interesting disagreement seems instead to be about the nature of sustainable agricultural production, and about morally acceptable future developments in agriculture. Many of those who are strongly opposed to GM crops essentially view modified food produce as a symptom of a general trend in agriculture. This trend is characterised by, for example, extensive use of agrochemicals and is driven by multinational companies. The discussion about genetically modified crops therefore needs to be a very broad one if it is to cater for the most widespread concerns of European citizens. In the past, many of those who defended GM crops failed to address these broader issues. They referred only to the absence, or low level, of scientific risks to human health or the environment associated with currently grown GM crops. So clearly the discussion about GM crops is part of a larger question about what sustainable development in agriculture involves. However, here GM crops are not the primary issues.

We wish to thank the Directorate for Food, Fisheries and Agri-Business under the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries for financial support and Dr. Stephen O. Duke for useful comments.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kathrine Hauge Madsen*

*Corresponding author.

Notes

^*Corresponding author.