The social and economic impact of biofortification through genetic modification

Current Opinion in Biotechnology

Volumn 44, Issue , 2017, Pages 161-168

  De Steur, Hans ^a   Demont, Matty ^b   Gellynck, Xavier ^a   Stein, Alexander J ^c  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Philippines)

^c EUROPEAN COMMISSION   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION TREES; DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS; ECONOMICS; GENETIC ENGINEERING; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; NUTRIENTS; TRACE ELEMENTS;

BIOFORTIFICATION; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; ECONOMICALLY VIABLE; GENETIC MODIFICATIONS; POLICY MAKERS; PROOF OF CONCEPT; SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS; SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS;

AGRICULTURAL PROCEDURES; BIOFORTIFICATION; BIOTECHNOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CRISPR CAS SYSTEM; DNA MODIFICATION; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT; DIET; ECONOMICS; FORTIFIED FOOD; PROCEDURES; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

TRACE ELEMENT;

BIOFORTIFICATION; DIET; FOOD, FORTIFIED; HUMANS; MICRONUTRIENTS; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED;

EID: 85013308960     PISSN: 09581669     EISSN: 18790429     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.copbio.2017.01.012     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. 1•• Stein, A.J., The poor, malnutrition, biofortification, and biotechnology. Herring, R.J., (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics, and Society, 2015, Oxford University Press, 149–180 Overview of biofortification, including its cost-effectiveness, with a particular focus on the discussion surrounding genetic engineering; includes further helpful references.
2. 2•• Saltzman, A., Birol, E., Bouis, H.E., Boy, E., De Moura, F.F., Islam, Y., Pfeiffer, W.H., Biofortification: progress toward a more nourishing future. Glob Food Secur 2 (2013), 9–17 Overview of biofortification, with a particular focus on implementation, including ex post results of first introduced biofortified crops, and with further helpful references.
3. 3 HarvestPlus, Biofortification Progress Briefs. 2014, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
4. 4 Garcia-Casal, M.N., Peña-Rosas, J.P., Giyose, B., Staple crops biofortified with increased vitamins and minerals: considerations for a public health strategy. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2016, 10.1111/nyas.13293 online 9 December.
5. 5•• De Steur, H., Blancquaert, D., Strobbe, S., Lambert, W., Gellynck, X., Van Der Straeten, D., Status and market potential of transgenic biofortified crops. Nat Biotechnol 33 (2015), 25–29 Key study on the current status of transgenic biofortification that combines a biotech review on 35 successful biofortification efforts and a socio-economic review on 19 micro-level and 6 macro-level analyses. Includes supplementary materials to examine data in detail.
6. 6 Sayre, R., Beeching, J.R., Cahoon, E.B., Egesi, C., Fauquet, C., Fellman, J., Fregene, M., Gruissem, W., Mallowa, S., Manary, M., et al. The BioCassava Plus Program: biofortification of cassava for Sub-Saharan Africa. Annu Rev Plant Biol 62 (2011), 251–272.
7. 7 Garcia-Casal, M.N., Peña-Rosas, J.P., Pachón, H., De-Regil, L.M., Centeno Tablante, E., Flores-Urrutia, M.C., Staple crops biofortified with increased micronutrient content: effects on vitamin and mineral status, as well as health and cognitive function in the general population. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 8, 2016, 10.1002/14651858.CD012311 online 4 August.
8. 8• Qaim, M., Stein, A.J., Meenakshi, J.V., Economics of biofortification. Agric Econ 37 (2007), 119–133 An early review of the cost-effectiveness of biofortification efforts of various crops and in different countries, offering a justification for continued research and development.
9. 9 Meenakshi, J.V., Johnson, N., Manyong, V., De Groote, H., Javelosa, J., Yanggen, D., Naher, F., Gonzalez, C., Garcia, J., Meng, E., How cost-effective is biofortification in combating micronutrient malnutrition? An ex-ante assessment. World Dev 38 (2010), 64–75.
10. 10 Zimmermann, R., Qaim, M., Potential health benefits of Golden Rice: a Philippine case study. Food Policy 29 (2004), 147–168.
11. 11• Stein, A.J., Sachdev, H.P.S., Qaim, M., Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of Golden Rice. Nat Biotechnol 24 (2006), 1200–1201 First detailed (household-level) cost-effectiveness analysis of a GM biofortified crop, showing that such crops can have a significant impact on public health at a competitive price; including supplementary online information with further, more detailed discussion.
12. 12 Fiedler, J.L., Kikulwe, E.M., Birol, E., (eds.) An Ex Ante Analysis of the Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Biofortified High-provitamin A and High-iron Banana in Uganda. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1277, 2013, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
13. 13 Miller, V., Yusuf, S., Chow, C.K., Dehghan, M., Corsi, D.J., Lock, K., Popkin, B., Rangarajan, S., Khatib, R., Lear, S.A., Availability, affordability, and consumption of fruits and vegetables in 18 countries across income levels: findings from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. Lancet Glob Health 4 (2016), e695–e703.
14. 14 Robinson, L.A., Hammitt, J.K., Chang, A.Y., Resch, S., Understanding and improving the one and three times GDP per capita cost-effectiveness thresholds. Health Policy Plan 32 (2017), 141–145.
15. 15 Stein, A.J., Qaim, M., The human and economic cost of hidden hunger. Food Nutr Bull 28 (2007), 125–134.
16. 16 Dawe, D., Robertson, R., Unnevehr, L., Golden Rice: what role could it play in alleviation of vitamin A deficiency?. Food Policy 27 (2002), 541–560.
17. 17 Stein, A.J., Sachdev, H.P.S., Qaim, M., Genetic engineering for the poor: Golden Rice and public health in India. World Dev 36 (2008), 144–158.
18. 18 De Moura, F.F., Moursi, M., Angel, M.D., Angeles-Agdeppa, I., Atmarita, A., Gironella, G.M., Muslimatun, S., Carriquiry, A., Biofortified β-carotene rice improves vitamin A intake and reduces the prevalence of inadequacy among women and young children in a simulated analysis in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Am J Clin Nutr, 2016 ajcn129270.
19. 19 Changat, D.P., Krishna, V.V., An ex-ante economic evaluation of nutritional impacts of transgenic-biofortified potato in India. Tropentag 2006, 2006.
20. 20 Krishna, V.V., Qaim, M., Potential impacts of Bt eggplant on economic surplus and farmers’ health in India. Agric Econ 38 (2008), 167–180.
21. 21 De Steur, H., Gellynck, X., Storozhenko, S., Liqun, G., Lambert, W., Van Der Straeten, D., Viaene, J., The health benefits of folate biofortified rice in China. Nat Biotechnol 28 (2010), 554–556.
22. 22 De Steur, H., Blancquaert, D., Gellynck, X., Lambert, W., Van Der Straeten, D., Ex-ante evaluation of biotechnology innovations: the case of folate biofortified rice in China. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 13 (2012), 2751–2760.
23. 23 Chow, J., Klein, E.Y., Laxminarayan, R., Cost-effectiveness of Golden Mustard for treating vitamin A deficiency in India. PLoS One, 5, 2010, e12046.
24. 24 Henley, E.C., Taylor, J.R.N., Obukosia, S.D., Chapter 2—The importance of dietary protein in human health: combating protein deficiency in Sub-Saharan Africa through transgenic biofortified sorghum. Steve, L.T., (eds.) Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, 2010, Academic Press, 21–52.
25. 25 Nguema, A., Norton, G.W., Fregene, M., Sayre, R.T., Manary, M., Economic benefits of meeting nutritional needs through biofortified cassava: an example from Nigeria and Kenya. Afr J Agric Resour Econ 13 (2011), 9–148.
26. 26• De Steur, H., Gellynck, X., Blancquaert, D., Lambert, W., Van Der Straeten, D., Qaim, M., Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of multi-biofortified rice in China. New Biotechnol 29 (2012), 432–442 First cost-effectiveness analysis of a multi-biofortified crop, showing the increase in cost-effectiveness due to the exploitation of synergies in development and dissemination.
27. 27 Murray, C.J., Lopez, A.D., The Global Burden of Disease and Injury Series: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020, vol. 1, 1996, The Harvard School of Public Health on Behalf of the World Health Organization and the World Bank.
28. 28• Stein, A.J., Meenakshi, J.V., Quinlivan, E., Nestel, P., Sachdev, H.P.S., Bhutta, Z.A., (eds.) Analyzing the Health Benefits of Biofortified Staple Crops by Means of the Disability-Adjusted Life Years Approach: A Handbook Focusing on Iron, Zinc and Vitamin A. HarvestPlus Technical Monograph 4, 2005, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 32 Handbook describing the methodology underlying many cost-effectiveness studies of biofortified crops, which helped increasing comparability of the results of different analyses; includes further helpful references.
29. 29 Stein, A.J., Qaim, M., Nestel, P., Zinc deficiency and DALYs in India: impact assessment and economic analyses. Preedy, V.R., Watson, R.R., (eds.) Handbook of Disease Burdens and Quality of Life Measures, 2010, Springer, New York, 1151–1169.
30. 30 Mogendi, J.B., De Steur, H., Gellynck, X., Makokha, A., Consumer evaluation of food with nutritional benefits: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Int J Food Sci Nutr 67 (2016), 355–371.
31. 31 Bredahl, L., Grunert, K., Frewer, L., Consumer attitudes and decision-making with regard to genetically engineered food products—a review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. J Consum Policy 21 (1998), 251–277.
32. 32• De Steur, H., Blancquaert, D., Lambert, W., Van Der Straeten, D., Gellynck, X., Conceptual framework for ex-ante evaluation at the micro/macro level of GM crops with health benefits. Trends Food Sci Technol 39 (2014), 116–134 This review paper summarizes underlying theories, methods and empirical research to develop and test a conceptual framework for socio-economic evaluation of second generation GM crops (including a case study on folate biofortified rice).
33. 33• Birol, E., Meenakshi, J., Oparinde, A., Perez, S., Tomlins, K., Developing country consumers’ acceptance of biofortified foods: a synthesis. Food Secur 7 (2015), 555–568 Recent HarvestPlus review on consumer research (sensory evaluation and WTP) on conventional bred varieties. Similar as for applications of GM biofortification, these studies confirm the high degree of acceptance of biofortified foods as well as the importance of information and awareness campaigns.
34. 34• Dannenberg, A., The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food—a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 68 (2009), 2182–2192 An update of the highly cited meta-analysis on WTP for GM foods by Jayson Lusk (Ref. [35]), which confirms the earlier reported differences according to region and higher WTP values when the improved trait has direct consumer benefits.
35. 35 Lusk, J.L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., Taulman, L., A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. J Agric Resour Econ 30 (2005), 28–44.
36. 36 Frewer, L., Fischer, A., Brennan, M., Bánáti, D., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., Siegrist, M., Verbeke, W., Vereijken, C., Risk/benefit communication about food—a systematic review of the literature. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 56 (2016), 1728–1745.
37. 37• Lusk, J.L., Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 85 (2003), 840–856 The first economic valuation study on GM biofortification. Aside from the high premium values for Golden Rice, this paper also emphasizes the importance of measures to reduce hypothetical bias (e.g., by cheap talk) in surveys on WTP.
38. 38 Lusk, J.L., Rozan, A., Consumer acceptance of biotechnology and the role of second generation technologies in the USA and Europe. Trends Biotechnol 23 (2005), 386–387.
39. 39 Deodhar, S.Y., Ganesh, S., Chern, W.S., Emerging markets for GM foods: an Indian perspective on consumer understanding and the willingness to pay. Int J Biotechnol 10 (2008), 570–587.
40. 40 Kajale, D.B., Becker, T.C., Willingness to pay for Golden Rice in India: a contingent valuation method analysis. J Food Prod Mark 21 (2015), 319–336.
41. 41 Corrigan, J.R., Depositario, D.P.T., Nayga, R.M. Jr., Wu, X., Laude, T.P., Comparing open-ended choice experiments and experimental auctions: an application to Golden Rice. Am J Agric Econ 91 (2009), 837–853.
42. 42 Depositario, D.P.T., Nayga, R.M. Jr., Wu, X., Laude, T.P., Effects of information on consumers’ willingness to pay for Golden Rice. Asian Econ J 23 (2009), 457–476.
43. 43 De Steur, H., Gellynck, X., Storozhenko, S., Liqun, G., Lambert, W., Van Der Straeten, D., Viaene, J., Willingness-to-accept and purchase genetically modified rice with high folate content in Shanxi Province, China. Appetite 54 (2010), 118–125.
44. 44 De Steur, H., Buysse, J., Feng, S., Gellynck, X., The role of information on consumers’ willingness-to-pay for GM rice with health benefits. An application to China. Asian Econ J 27 (2013), 391–408.
45. 45 Gonzalez, C., Johnson, N., Qaim, M., Consumer acceptance of second-generation GM foods: the case of biofortified cassava in the North-East of Brazil. J Agric Econ 60 (2009), 604–624.
46. 46 Kassardjian, E., Robin, S., Ruffieux, B., L'hostilite aux OGM survit-elle a des produits attractifs?. Rev Fr Econ 26 (2012), 121–150.
47. 47 Belhaj, K., Chaparro-Garcia, A., Kamoun, S., Patron, N.J., Nekrasov, V., Editing plant genomes with CRISPR/Cas9. Curr Opin Biotechnol 32 (2015), 76–84.
48. 48 Kuzma, J., Policy: reboot the debate on genetic engineering. Nature 531 (2016), 165–167.
49. 49 Colson, G.J., Huffmann, W.E., Rousu, M.C., Improving the nutrient content of food through genetic modification: evidence from experimental auctions on consumer acceptance. J Agric Resour Econ 36 (2011), 343–364.
50. 50 De Steur, H., Gellynck, X., Feng, S., Rutsaert, P., Verbeke, W., Determinants of willingness-to-pay for GM rice with health benefits in a high-risk region: evidence from experimental auctions for folate biofortified rice in China. Food Qual Preference 25 (2012), 87–94.
51. 51 Klümper, W., Qaim, M., A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e111629.
52. 52• Demont, M., Stein, A.J., Global value of GM rice: a review of expected agronomic and consumer benefits. New Biotechnol 30 (2013), 426–436 This is the first comprehensive review of the expected agronomic and consumer benefits of GM rice and the first study attempting to estimate the global value of GM rice.
53. 53• Gruère, G., Bouët, A., Mevel, S., International trade and welfare effects of biotechnology innovations: GM food crops in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and the Philippines. Carter, C.A., Moschini, G., Sheldon, I., (eds.) Genetically Modified Food and Global Welfare (Frontiers of Economics and Globalization, vol. 10, 2011, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 283–308 This study draws three lessons from the literature on trade of first-generation GM crops and provides further evidence on the impact of trade-related regulations on the economic gains from GM crop adoption through a multimarket, multicountry, computable general equilibrium model.
54. 54 Smyth, S.J., Kerr, W.A., Phillips, P.W., Global economic, environmental and health benefits from GM crop adoption. Glob Food Secur 7 (2015), 24–29.
55. 55 Henseler, M., Piot-Lepetit, I., Ferrari, E., Mellado, A.G., Banse, M., Grethe, H., Parisi, C., Hélaine, S., On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports. Food Policy 41 (2013), 166–176.
56. 56 Gruère, G.P., Carter, C.A., Farzin, Y.H., Explaining international differences in genetically modified food labeling policies. Rev Int Econ 17 (2009), 393–408.
57. 57•• Gruère, G., Sengupta, D., GM-free private standards and their effects on biosafety decision-making in developing countries. Food Policy 34 (2009), 399–406 First study reviewing the evidence that GM-free private standards affect biosafety decision-making in developing countries; includes a useful framework of hypothetical links between five types of actors.
58. 58 Lusk, J.L., Bruce Traill, W., House, L.O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S.R., Moore, M., Morrow, B., Comparative advantage in demand: experimental evidence of preferences for genetically modified food in the United States and European Union. J Agric Econ 57 (2006), 1–21.
59. 59 De Steur, H., Feng, S., Xiaoping, S., Gellynck, X., Consumer preferences for micronutrient strategies in China: a comparison between folic acid supplementation and folate biofortification. Public Health Nutr 17 (2014), 1410–1420.
60. 60 Joy, E.J.M., Ahmad, W., Zia, M.H., Kumssa, D.B., Young, S.D., Ander, E.L., Watts, M.J., Stein, A.J., Broadley, M.R., Valuing increased zinc (Zn) fertiliser-use in Pakistan. Plant Soil, 2016, 1–12.
61. 61 Colson, G., Rousu, M.C., What do consumer surveys and experiments reveal and conceal about consumer preferences for genetically modified foods?. GM Crops Food 4 (2013), 158–165.
62. 62 De Steur, H., Vanhonacker, F., Feng, S., Xiaoping, S., Verbeke, W., Gellynck, X., Cognitive biases and design effects in experimental auctions: an application to GM rice with health benefits. China Agric Econ Rev 6 (2014), 413–432.
63. 63•• De Steur, H., Wesana, J., Blancquaert, D., Van Der Straeten, D., Gellynck, X., Methods matter: a meta-regression on the determinants of willingness-to-pay studies on biofortified foods. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2016, 10.1111/nyas.13277 online 6 November Key review on WTP for conventional and GM biofortified foods (122 estimates from 23 studies, covering 9507 respondents) with evidence of the impact of contextual factors (e.g., targeted crop, nutrient and region) and various methodological factors (type of respondent, nature of the study, study environment, participation fee and provided information).
64. 64 The Washington Post: 107 Nobel Laureates Sign Letter Blasting Greenpeace Over GMOs. 30 June 2016.
65. 65• Potrykus, I., Lessons from the ‘Humanitarian Golden Rice’ project: regulation prevents development of public good genetically engineered crop products. New Biotechnol 27 (2010), 466–472 Ingo Potrykus, one of the founding fathers of Golden Rice, provides a comprehensive overview of the key issues associated with the regulation (hence, delayed approval) of what is currently the most advanced GM biofortified crop.