The Gates Foundation has spent billions of dollars and funded thousands of projects on chemical inputs and gene technologies at universities and research institutes around the world. Yet the evidence behind gene technologies — like genetic engineering and new breeding techniques — is weak at best, and largely stems from experimental conditions in the US. 

There are a number of arguments put forward in support of genetic engineering and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

Let’s debunk these one by one.

GMOs Do Not Significantly Increase Crop Yields

Proponents of genetic engineering argue that GMOs can reduce world hunger by boosting yields, increasing the overall amount of food produced. Based on this assumption, the Gates Foundation has awarded numerous grants to projects that aim to genetically engineer both staple crops and livestock species to have higher productivity. 

While livestock research is more nascent, the results of decades of experimentation and commercialization of GM crops do not suggest that these deliver consistently higher yields. In the US, where GM crops have been widely planted for decades, their impact on crop yield is negligible. Some analyses of the data demonstrate no improvement, while other analyses suggest a small but non-significant improvement in yield. Overall, a report published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concludes that the nation-wide data on maize, cotton, and soybean in the United States do not show a significant impact of genetic-engineering technology on the rate of yield increase. By contrast, significant, replicable evidence suggests that agroecology is able to increase crop yield, decrease household hunger, and improve diet diversity.

Moreover, as we discuss in Companion Guide 1, higher yields do not necessarily reduce hunger, due to unfair and unequal systems of distribution and access. And an exclusive emphasis on yield (rather than also on crop diversity and/or nutritional profiles) has undermined wider health goals and has contributed to soil exhaustion and degradation, through industrial agricultural models that rely on monocropping. 

What we refer to as gene technologies includes a range of approaches that share a commitment to understanding, visualizing, editing, and manipulating the genetic code of plants and animals. 

Genetic Engineering (GE) refers to the modification and manipulation of an organism's genes using biotechnology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup, or DNA, of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce “improved” or novel organisms.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are the products of genetic engineering, and they range from yeasts and bacteria to genetically modified (GM) crops like soybeans, corn, and cotton. In most cases, genetic modification of crops is aimed at introducing a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species, such as pest resistance. 

New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) are methods that aim to increase and accelerate the development of new traits in plant breeding. NBTs make specific changes within plant DNA in order to change its traits, and these modifications can vary in scale from altering a single base, to inserting or removing one or more genes. These new techniques often involve RNA interference, also known as “gene silencing,” which switches off the expression of specific genes, or genome editing, which modifies DNA at specific locations within the plant’s genes so that new traits and properties are produced. Perhaps the most widely-known example of NBTs is CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. In this form of genome editing, an enzyme (Cas9) facilitates the ability of the CRISPR family of DNA sequences to cut the DNA of a target organism, after which the natural DNA repair processes take over. The products of NBTs may or may not be classified as GMOs, depending on the specific techniques used and a given country’s regulatory frameworks and definitions.

GMOs Do Not Build Climate Resilience or Drought Resistance

Another key argument put forward for the focus on GM crops is that climate change will require developing drought-resistant crops. However, it is not clear that GM crops can actually produce greater yields under severe drought conditions. A US Department of Agriculture report has found that while drought-tolerant corn varieties planted in the US (the vast majority of which are GMOs) may sometimes be worth the higher cost to farmers, under “extreme or exceptional drought, there could be little expected benefit to adoption since both DT and non-DT corn are likely to suffer crop failure.” These dubious results have been used to drum up support for genetic engineering initiatives in Africa, such as the Water-Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project. WEMA was a public-private partnership coordinated by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation and funded by the Gates Foundation, which sought to develop drought-tolerant and insect-resistant maize. Monsanto donated the gene used in its MON 87460 variety to the project, admitting based on their data that the gene provided only a 6 percent reduction in yield loss in times of moderate drought — but this could be reduced to zero under severe drought conditions. It is likely that any yield advantages of WEMA varieties, like DroughtTEGO, during mild or moderate drought conditions may disappear during severe droughts — which are increasing in duration and frequency due to climate change (as has been the case with US GMO drought-tolerant varieties). Because the crop varieties used in WEMA were already heavily reliant on other techniques such as conventional breeding, it is not clear how much additional drought tolerance comes from genetic engineering. 

Furthermore, drought tolerance is determined by many genes, as well as external environmental factors. Yet genetic engineering can only manipulate a few genes at a time; this is why, to date, the most widely-adopted and commercially successful GM crops are those that are more straightforward, such as Bt crops into which DNA from the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) soil bacterium have been inserted to confer pest resistance. Genetic engineering is unlikely to accomplish the goal of drought resistance given the complexity of the circumstances surrounding it. 

Finally, droughts vary in severity and timing, and it is therefore unlikely that any single approach or gene used to make a GM crop will be useful in all types of drought. As noted above, GM drought-tolerant varieties do not outperform conventionally-grown drought-tolerant varieties or non-GMO hybrids during severe droughts, and may fail entirely. While organic corn has demonstrated a 31 percent higher yield than conventional in years of drought, GM drought-tolerant corn only outperformed conventional corn by 6.7 percent to 13.3 percent. 

By moving away from a singular focus on monoculture, which increases vulnerability to drought regardless of whether the crop is GM or not, agroecology builds overall farm resilience in the face of climate change.

Pro-GMO advocates often claim that GMOs will reduce the use of toxic chemical inputs. However, a 2016 study found that while insecticide use decreased with the adoption of GM crops in the US, the use of herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup) increased.

(source: Edward D. Perry et al., 2016, Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. maize and soybeans — summary here)

GMOs Do Not Benefit Small Farmers

In addition to concerns over viability, there are more fundamental criticisms of access and control over genetic engineering technology. GM crops are unlikely to benefit small-scale farmers, because they are designed to be used in large-scale industrial farming systems, by farmers who have access to credit and markets. We can look to the example of Makhatini cotton in South Africa for an illustration of this. In 1997, Monsanto developed a project in Makhatini, Northern KwaZulu Natal, to introduce GM cotton to small-scale farmers. They gave farmers support to grow their crops and made credit available to farmers in the area. Within two years, almost 90 percent of small-scale farmers were growing GM cotton. However, GM seeds are expensive and require farmers to apply specific pesticides and fertilizers. Participating farmers had to take out loans to begin production, but were unable to pay back their debt. By 2009-2010, nearly all farmers had abandoned GM cotton, and R22 million in outstanding debt remained. We see similar patterns in other attempts to introduce GM crops to small-scale farmers — switching to cash crops does not improve household livelihoods, and farmers cannot get good prices as they have little bargaining power, leaving them in debt and unable to sustain GM crops.

New technologies can be part of the solution, but they must fit within a well-thought-out development and delivery program that ensures people can make their own decisions, manage their own systems, and access the resources they need. The widespread promotion of gene technologies can result in multinational companies gaining further control over the food chain by patenting techniques, genes, and products.  Like commercialized, privatized, and patented seeds more generally (as discussed in Companion Guide 2), GMOs tip the scale in favor of corporations, threatening the livelihoods of farmers in Africa for whom the majority of crops are grown with no intergovernmental or donor support from farmer-saved seed and farmer-developed varieties — many of which are equally, if not better, adapted to changing climatic conditions.

GMOs Do Not Solve Food Insecurity or Malnutrition

In addition to claims about boosting overall yields, GMOs are often promoted as a “silver bullet” in addressing nutrient deficiencies and malnutrition. Proponents and funders like the Gates Foundation suggest that a key strategy in fighting malnutrition is for staples, like cassava and rice, to be bred to have higher doses of micronutrients. There are two main ways that gene technologies are used to play a role in this process of biofortification:

  • Scientists can use genome sequencing to identify cultivars with higher naturally-occurring levels of micronutrients, which can then be cross-bred using conventional breeding techniques.

  • Scientists can use genetic engineering to introduce vitamins or minerals across crop species. The most famous and controversial example of this is Golden Rice, discussed below.

Since the 1980s, researchers have worked to genetically engineer Golden Rice—varieties of rice that could include high levels of beta-carotene in the endosperm (not just the hull). To do this, they used biosynthesis genes from daffodil and the soil bacterium Erwinia uredovora; later cultivars also used genetic material from maize. Golden Rice promised to reduce Vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which causes hundreds of thousands of childhood deaths each year. In the 2010s, the Gates Foundation awarded a grant of $10.3 million to support Golden Rice development at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines.

However, Golden Rice has consistently come up against regulatory challenges. Although its supporters blame delays in approval on anti-GMO activists, critics suggest that the technology itself was simply underdeveloped, requiring decades to even be ready for the market. And while Golden Rice was approved for sale in the Philippines in 2021, with farmers planting it in 2022, it is not positioned to make a meaningful impact on VAD, for several key reasons:

  • Beta-carotene uptake requires high levels of fat in the diet, and feeding trials of Golden Rice only measured uptake in children who were healthy and eating balanced diets (unlike the vast majority of children experiencing VAD).

  • Golden Rice varieties, developed in labs, do not actually grow successfully in the areas and ecological zones in which the majority of children with VAD live. 

  • In the Philippines, the incidence of VAD had already fallen dramatically prior to the arrival of Golden Rice, due to governmental childhood nutrition programs.

As the Golden Rice case demonstrates, more holistic solutions can actually deliver more effective results in terms of meeting nutritional needs.

Other foods contain higher levels of naturally-occurring beta carotene than does Golden Rice (source: GRAIN)

(photo source: Wikipedia)

Even when it succeeds in meeting narrowly-defined goals, genetic engineering is overly reductionist.

It focuses on specific qualities and traits of a handful of species, in isolation from the rest of the social and environmental landscape. In terms of environmental impacts, all of the available evidence suggests that this kind of monocultural system is ecologically harmful and extremely vulnerable to disruption. And in terms of human health, there is insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions about the safety of GMOs. By contrast, agroecology promotes health among both humans and environments, through crop diversification and holistic, ecosystem-level approaches.

Sources & NOTES:

On the Gates Foundation:

On gene technologies in agriculture:

On Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA):

On agroecology:

  • Beverly D. McIntyre, Hans Herren, Judi Wakhungu, and Robert T. Watson (Eds) (2009), Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Report, in Agriculture at a Crossroads: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)

On biofortification:

On Golden Rice: