IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devchg/v54y2023i1p117-142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond the Genome: Genetically Modified Crops in Africa and the Implications for Genome Editing

Author

Listed:
  • Joeva Sean Rock
  • Matthew A. Schnurr
  • Ann Kingiri
  • Dominic Glover
  • Glenn Davis Stone
  • Adrian Ely
  • Klara Fischer

Abstract

Genome editing — a plant‐breeding technology that facilitates the manipulation of genetic traits within living organisms — has captured the imagination of scholars and professionals working on agricultural development in Africa. Echoing the arrival of genetically modified (GM) crops decades ago, genome editing is being heralded as a technology with the potential to revolutionize breeding based on enhanced precision, reduced cost and increased speed. This article makes two interventions. First, it identifies the discursive continuity linking genome editing and the earlier technology of genetic modification. Second, it offers a suite of recommendations regarding how lessons learned from GM crops might be integrated into future breeding programmes focused on genome editing. Ultimately, the authors argue that donors, policy makers and scientists should move beyond the genome towards systems‐level thinking by prioritizing the co‐development of technologies with farmers; using plant material that is unencumbered by intellectual property restrictions and therefore accessible to resource‐poor farmers; and acknowledging that seeds are components of complex and dynamic agroecological production systems. If these lessons are not heeded, genome‐editing projects are in danger of repeating mistakes of the past.

Suggested Citation

  • Joeva Sean Rock & Matthew A. Schnurr & Ann Kingiri & Dominic Glover & Glenn Davis Stone & Adrian Ely & Klara Fischer, 2023. "Beyond the Genome: Genetically Modified Crops in Africa and the Implications for Genome Editing," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 54(1), pages 117-142, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:devchg:v:54:y:2023:i:1:p:117-142
    DOI: 10.1111/dech.12750
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12750
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dech.12750?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ann N. Kingiri & Andy Hall, 2012. "The Role of Policy Brokers: The Case of Biotechnology in Kenya," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(4), pages 492-522, July.
    2. Luna, Jessie K. & Dowd-Uribe, Brian, 2020. "Knowledge politics and the Bt cotton success narrative in Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    3. Volker Hoffmann & Kirsten Probst & Anja Christinck, 2007. "Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technology development?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 355-368, September.
    4. Lois Muraguri, 2010. "Unplugged!: An analysis of agricultural biotechnology PPPs in Kenya," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 289-307.
    5. Brander, Michael & Bernauer, Thomas & Huss, Matthias, 2021. "Improved on-farm storage reduces seasonal food insecurity of smallholder farmer households – Evidence from a randomized control trial in Tanzania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    6. Geoffrey Barrows & Steven Sexton & David Zilberman, 2014. "Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise and Prospects of Genetically Modified Crops," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(1), pages 99-120, Winter.
    7. Calestous Juma, 2011. "Preventing hunger: Biotechnology is key," Nature, Nature, vol. 479(7374), pages 471-472, November.
    8. Matin Qaim, 2020. "Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 129-150, June.
    9. Fischer, Klara, 2016. "Why new crop technology is not scale-neutral—A critique of the expectations for a crop-based African Green Revolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1185-1194.
    10. Jennifer Clapp, 2019. "The rise of financial investment and common ownership in global agrifood firms," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 604-629, July.
    11. Delvenne, Pierre & Parotte, Céline, 2019. "Breaking the myth of neutrality: Technology Assessment has politics, Technology Assessment as politics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 64-72.
    12. Howarth Bouis, 2007. "The potential of genetically modified food crops to improve human nutrition in developing countries," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 79-96.
    13. Franks, Jeremy R., 1999. "The status and prospects for genetically modified crops in Europe," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 565-584, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Zuberi, Mehwish & Spies, Michael & Nielsen, Jonas Ø., 2024. "Is there a future for smallholder farmers in bioeconomy? The case of ‘improved’ seeds in South Punjab, Pakistan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Alexandre Gohin, 2023. "On the sustainability of the French food system: A macroeconomic assessment," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 860-880, June.
    4. Georgina Catacora-Vargas & Rosa Binimelis & Anne I. Myhr & Brian Wynne, 2018. "Socio-economic research on genetically modified crops: a study of the literature," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(2), pages 489-513, June.
    5. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Hauerwaas, Antoniya & Elshiewy, Ossama & Halder, Pradipta & Wesseler, Justus & Cingiz, Kutay & Broer, Inge, 2023. "Beyond plastic – Consumers prefer food packaging derived from genetically modified plants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    6. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    7. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2023. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 414-435, March.
    8. Zoltán Lakner & Brigitta Plasek & Gyula Kasza & Anna Kiss & Sándor Soós & Ágoston Temesi, 2021. "Towards Understanding the Food Consumer Behavior–Food Safety–Sustainability Triangle: A Bibliometric Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    9. Aras Türkoğlu & Kamil Haliloğlu & Metin Tosun & Piotr Szulc & Fatih Demirel & Barış Eren & Henryk Bujak & Halit Karagöz & Marek Selwet & Güller Özkan & Gniewko Niedbała, 2023. "Sodium Azide as a Chemical Mutagen in Wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.): Patterns of the Genetic and Epigenetic Effects with iPBS and CRED-iPBS Techniques," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, June.
    10. Mengjie Tian & Mingyong Hong & Ji Wang, 2023. "Land resources, market-oriented reform and high-quality agricultural development," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 4165-4197, December.
    11. OBISESAN, Adekemi & AWOLALA, David, 2021. "Crop Diversification, Productivity And Dietary Diversity: A Gender Perspective," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 24(1), March.
    12. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Jayson Beckman & Maros Ivanic & Jeremy Jelliffe, 2022. "Market impacts of Farm to Fork: Reducing agricultural input usage," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1995-2013, December.
    14. Dayakar Peddi & B. Suresh Reddy, 2023. "Analysis of Irrigation Enhancement, Crop Diversification and Farm Profits: Evidence from Telangana State," Review of Development and Change, , vol. 28(2), pages 189-206, December.
    15. Julian M. Alston & Philip G. Pardey, 2020. "Innovation, Growth, and Structural Change in American Agriculture," NBER Chapters, in: The Role of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Economic Growth, pages 123-165, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Nyantakyi-Frimpong, Hanson & Mambulu, Faith Nankasa & Bezner Kerr, Rachel & Luginaah, Isaac & Lupafya, Esther, 2016. "Agroecology and sustainable food systems: Participatory research to improve food security among HIV-affected households in northern Malawi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 89-99.
    17. Benjamin C. Wilde & Eva Lieberherr & Andrew E. Okem & Johan Six, 2019. "Nitrified Human Urine as a Sustainable and Socially Acceptable Fertilizer: An Analysis of Consumer Acceptance in Msunduzi, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, April.
    18. Albert Banal-Estanol & Jo Seldeslachts & Xavier Vives, 2022. "Ownership Diversification and Product Market Pricing Incentives," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 2023, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    19. Shazia Kousar & Farhan Ahmed & Amber Pervaiz & Štefan Bojnec, 2021. "Food Insecurity, Population Growth, Urbanization and Water Availability: The Role of Government Stability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Aurélie Cardona & Cristiana Carusi & Michael Mayerfeld Bell, 2021. "Engaged Intermediaries to Bridge the Gap between Scientists, Educational Practitioners and Farmers to Develop Sustainable Agri-Food Innovation Systems: A US Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devchg:v:54:y:2023:i:1:p:117-142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0012-155X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.