A

REPORT ON

“IMPACTS OF GENETICALLY-MODIFIED CROPS AND SEEDS ON

FARMERS”

SUBMITTED
TO
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI

FOR

THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ACCOUNT AND

FINANCE

UNDER THE

FACULTY OF ACCOUNT AND FINANCE

THE SUBJECT OF

FOUNDATION COURSE II

F.Y. BAF

BY

ADITYA PARAB (39)

UNDER THE GUIDANCE
OF
ASST. PROF S.I. SHAHA

SANT RAWOOL MAHARAJ MAHAVIDYALAYA,

KUDAL DIST: - SINDHUDURG (416520)

(2023 -2024)
1
 Declaration
I undersigned Mr. Aditya Dinesh Parab hereby declared that the work embodied
in this project work title “Impact of genetically-modified crops and seeds on
farmers” forms my own contribution to research work carried out under the
guidance of Asst. prof. S.I. Shaha is a result of my own research work and has
been previously submitted to any other University for any other degree to this or
any other university.

Whenever reference has been made to previous work of others, it has been
clearly indicating as such and include in the refences.

I, hereby further declare that all information of this document has been obtained
and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct.

Certified by

Asst. Prof. S.I. Shaha Mr. Aditya Dinesh Parab

Date of Submission

INDEX
2
Sr.No Contains Page
. no.
1 Introduction 4

2 Theoretical background 5

3 Data interpretation and analysis 7

 Benefits
 Concerns

4 Findings 16

5 Suggestion 17

6 Conclusion 18

7 References 19

Introduction
The agriculture industry has traditionally been supportive of
technological advancement, particularly in the field of genetic crop

3
improvement. For decades, the industry has been mixing naturally the genetic
traits of seeds in the search for particularly robust varieties.

Genetically-modified (GM) seeds are a significant step forward in the

production of agricultural crops. GM seeds are seeds that have been modified
to contain specific characteristics such as resistance to herbicides (in the case
of "Roundup Ready" products) or resistance to pests (in the case of but corn).
But the method of modification used with GM seeds varies from the traditional
method in an important respect: the genes have not been modified over
generations of cross-fertilization, but rather inserted directly into the DNA of

the seed. Although this method is more efficient, critics fear that the result a
"novel gene combination" may have health or environmental impacts that are

not being adequately addressed. As a result, the technology is surrounded by

significant controversy.

The reaction of farmers to this new technology has been mixed. Some

farmers have quickly adopted the technology. Other farmers, mindful of the
controversy surrounding GM products, have hesitated to use GM seeds as
part of their agricultural operations.

Farmers should understand both the benefits and concerns that are
raised by the use of GM seeds. Benefits of the technology include increased
crop yields, diminished use of pesticides and herbicides, and increased

profits. Concerns that farmers should.

4
 Theoretical Background
Humans have directly influenced the genetic makeup of plants to increase their value as
a crop through domestication. The first evidence of plant domestication comes from emmer
and einkorn wheat found in pre-Pottery Neolithic A villages in Southwest Asia dated about
10,500 to 10,100 BC. The Fertile Crescent of Western Asia, Egypt, and India were sites of the
earliest planned sowing and harvesting of plants that had previously been gathered in the wild.
Independent development of agriculture occurred in northern and southern China, Africa's
Sahel, New Guinea and several regions of the Americas. The eight Neolithic founder crops
(emmer wheat, einkorn wheat, barley, peas, lentils, bitter vetch, chick peas and flax) had all
appeared by about 7,000 BC. Traditional crop breeders have long introduced foreign germplasm
into crops by creating novel crosses. A hybrid cereal grain was created in 1875, by crossing
wheat and rye. Since then, traits including dwarfing genes and rust resistance have been
introduced in that manner. Plant tissue culture and deliberate mutations have enabled humans
to alter the makeup of plant genomes.

Modern advances in genetics have allowed humans to more directly alter plants
genetics. In 1970 Hamilton Smith's lab discovered restriction enzymes that allowed DNA to be
cut at specific places, enabling scientists to isolate genes from an organism's genome. DNA
ligases that join broken DNA together had been discovered earlier in 1967, and by combining
the two technologies, it was possible to "cut and paste" DNA sequences and create
recombinant DNA. Plasmids, discovered in 1952,[38] became important tools for transferring
information between cells and replicating DNA sequences. In 1907 a bacterium that caused
plant tumour’s, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, was discovered and in the early 1970s the
tumour’s inducing agent was found to be a DNA plasmid called the Ti plasmid. By removing the
genes in the plasmid that caused the tumour and adding in novel genes researchers were able
to infect plants with A. tumefaciens and let the bacteria insert their chosen DNA sequence into
the genomes of the plants. As not all plant cells were susceptible to infection by A. tumefaciens
other methods were developed, including electroporation, micro-injection and particle
bombardment with a gene gun (invented in 1987). In the 1980s techniques were developed to
introduce isolated chloroplasts back into a plant cell that had its cell wall removed. With the
5
introduction of the gene gun in 1987 it became possible to integrate foreign genes into a
chloroplast. Genetic transformation has become very efficient in some model organisms. In
2008 genetically modified seeds were produced in Arabidopsis thaliana by dipping the flowers
in an Agrobacterium solution. In 2013 CRISPR was first used to target modification of plant
genomes.

The first genetically engineered crop plant was tobacco, reported in 1983. It was
developed creating a chimeric gene that joined an antibiotic resistant gene to the T1 plasmid
from Agrobacterium. The tobacco was infected with Agrobacterium transformed with this
plasmid resulting in the chimeric gene being inserted into the plant. Through tissue culture
techniques a single tobacco cell was selected that contained the gene and a new plant grown
from it. The first field trials of genetically engineered plants occurred in France and the US in
1986, tobacco plants were engineered to be resistant to herbicides. In 1987 Plant Genetic
Systems, founded by Marc Van Montagu and Jeff Schell, was the first company to genetically
engineer insect-resistant plants by incorporating genes that produced insecticidal proteins from
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) into tobacco. The People's Republic of China was the first country to
commercialise transgenic plants, introducing a virus-resistant tobacco in 1992.

In 1994 Celgene attained approval to commercially release the Flav Savr tomato, a
tomato engineered to have a longer shelf life. Also in 1994, the European Union approved
tobacco engineered to be resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, making it the first genetically
engineered crop commercialised in Europe. In 1995 But Potato was approved safe by the
Environmental Protection Agency, after having been approved by the FDA, making it the first
pesticide producing crop to be approved in the US. In 1996 a total of 35 approvals had been
granted to commercially grow 8 transgenic crops and one flower crop (carnation), with 8
different traits in 6 countries plus the EU. By 2010, 29 countries had planted commercialised
genetically modified crops and a further 31 countries had granted regulatory approval for
transgenic crops to be imported.

6
 Data analysis
 Benefits
A. Increased crop yields
There is an expectation widely held by those in agriculture that GM seeds will
the yields of farmers that adopt the technology. Although there is not yet a large
volume of research regarding the impact of biotechnology on crop yields and returns,
the research that is available supports this expectation.

In a study using 1997 data, the Economic Research Service (ERS) found a
statistically significant relationship between increased crop yields and increased

adoption of herbicide- and pesticide-tolerant crop seeds. The ERS study found that
crop yields "significantly increased" when farmers adopted herbicide-tolerant
cotton and Bt cotton.The use of herbicide-tolerant soybeans resulted in a "small
increase" in crop yields.

Another study performed by Iowa State University found that Bt crops out-
yielded non-Bt crops. The university studied 377 fields and estimated that crops
grown from GM seeds yielded 160.4 bushels of Bt corn per field, while crops grown
from non-GM seeds yielded 147.7 per field.

7
B. Fewer applications of pesticides and herbicides
Similarly, farmers expect that, as adoption of GM seeds increases, the use of
chemical pesticides and herbicides (and the costs associated with their application)
will decrease. Again, the research that is available generally supports this expectation.

The study by ERS found a decrease of p

esticide and herbicide use when

farmers adopted GM seeds. The decrease in pesticide use was significant. This
decrease in herbicide use was also significant (except for the herbicide glycophytic,
for which the research revealed a significant increase).

Other studies have not found a clear connection between the use of GM seeds
and decreased chemical use. For instance, the Iowa State University study discussed
above found that farmers' use of pesticides on GM crops remained "surprisingly
large." Farmers applied pesticides on 18% of non-GM crops and 12% of GM crops.

8
C. Increased profits
In general, studies indicate that farmers' profits increase as they adopt GM
seeds. The ERS study found that in most cases there is a statistically significant
relationship between an increase in the use of GM seeds and an increase in net

returns from farming operations. For example, the service found that, on average, GM
soybean crops produced a net value of $208.42 per planted acre, while other crops

produced a value of $191.56 per planted acre. The service also found a "significant
increase" in net returns for herbicide-tolerant cotton crops and Bt cotton crops.

Other studies have reached similar results. Studies in Tennessee and

Mississippi found higher returns from herbicide-resistant soybeans than from
conventional soybeans. A North Carolina study indicated that GM soybeans yielded
$6 more per acre than traditional varieties.

9
  Concerns
A. Contractual issues
The con
tracts that seed companies require that buyers of their GM seeds sign
when obtaining those seeds may disadvantage farmers. Seed companies have invested
significant funds in the research and development of GM seeds, and they protect this

investment through their contracts with agricultural growers. These contracts

aggressively protect the biotechnology company's rights to the seeds, frame the context
within which disputes may be settled, and limit the liability of the company.

1. Limited rights to retain and reuse seed

Under a private contract between a grower and a biotech company, the
grower's rights to the purchased seed are significantly limited. Such contracts
generally contain a "no saved seed" provision. This provision prohibits growers
from saving seed and/or reusing seed from GM crops. In effect, the provision
requires growers of GM crops to make an annual purchase of GM seeds.

A patent inf
ringement case stemming from unauthorized saving of GM

seeds was recently tried in the Canadian courts. In this case, Monsanto Company
sued Percy Schmeiser, a local farmer, for saving and planting GM seeds produced
from pollen that had blown onto his fields from a neighbouring farm. Schmeiser
himself had no contract with Monsanto. The court found that the defendant
planted seed saved from a field onto which pollen from GM canola had blown. The
court found further that Schmeiser had engaged in these activities knowingly. This
violated the patent Monsanto held on the Roundup tolerant seed. Mr. Schmeiser
was required to deliver to Monsanto any remaining saved seed and to pay to
Monsanto the profits earned from the crops, plus interest.

2. Binding arbitration

10
 Often contracts between seed companies and private growers contain a
binding arbitration clause that requires all conflicts arising from performance of
the seed (or technological traits within the seed) to be resolved through

arbitration. This binding arbitration clause precludes farmers from filing

lawsuits.
Additionally, the farmer is constrained
in terms of the time frame within
which he must raise a dispute. Under the contract, the grower is typically given as
little as 15 days from the day that the problem is first observed to file a complaint
with the seed company.

3. Acceptance of limited liability

Contracts between seed companies and farmers sometimes contain a
clause that limits the "liability of [the seed company] to or any seller for any and
all losses, injury or damages resulting from the use or handling of a product
containing [the seed company's] gene technology shall be the price paid by the
grower for the quantity of such product involved, or at the election of [the seed
company] or any seller, the replacement of such quantity. In no event shall [the
seed company] or any seller be liable for any incidental, consequential, special or
punitive damages. “Under such a clause, if the use of GM seed has a negative
impact on another aspect of the farmer's operations, this clause precludes the
farmer from recovering any damages from the company in the event the use of
the product causes harm.

11
B. Environmental Concerns

1. Development of resistant weeds and insects

Far
mers may worry that their use of GM seeds will create "superweeds" or
"superbugs" that, over time, become resistant to GM seeds and crops and to other
herbicides and pesticides. There is some research that suggests that weeds and bugs
could possibly evolve into resistant organisms. Gene movement from crop to weed
through pollen transfer has been demonstrated for GM crops when the crop is grown

near a closely related weed species. Similarly, insects have, in the past, developed a
resistance to pesticides. A recent study documented a decreased susceptibility in
pests to the use of but as a sprayed pesticide.

One particular strategy that has been

developed to prevent the growth of
pests resistant to GM seeds is "refuge areas." These areas are swaths of land,
planted with non-GM crops, which act as refuges for the pests. Pests migrate to and
remain in these areas, where they eat and breed. Since the refuge area offers the
pest adequate food, the pest has no need to become resistant to GM crops, and thus
the bulk of the crop is protected. The use of refuge areas is now mandated by the
EPA.

2. Difficulty of preserving the identity of non-GM crops

Identity preservation in the field

Potential cross-pollination of GM
seeds onto non-GM crops is also a concern
to farmers, particularly those farmers that certify their crops as non-GM crops or
organic crops. There is evidence that such cross-pollination is already occurring.
Plants with GM characteristics have been found in conventional crops as well as in

12
crops that have been grown using only organic farming practices Tests performed by
Successful Farming magazine found evidence of cross-pollination in both corn and
soybean crops.
Cross-pollina
tion raises the question of whether farmers planting GM crops
are liable to their non-GM neighbours for pollen drift. Traditionally, farmers have not
been liable for pollen drift onto neighbouring properties. However, farmers have
been held liable under a theory of negligence for pesticide use (including use of the

pesticide Bt) if the drift from that pesticide encroaches on neighbouring lands. It
remains to be seen whether pollen drift from Bt corn and other GM crops will be
found by the courts to be actionable. Observers of the GM industry have suggested
that a cause of action may be pled under the theory of trespass or negligence, or by
analogizing the GM pollen drift to pesticide drift.

Identity preservation from field to market

Another concern for farmers who are not currently planting GM crops is
preserving the identity of their non-GM crops as those crops move from farm to
market. Currently, bulk agricultural trading facilities are not able to separate GM

crops from traditional crops. Shipments of corn and soybeans originating at these
facilities cannot be guaranteed as "GM-free."

The importance of preserving the integrity of agricultural crops was

highlighted recently when Star link corn was found in taco shells distributed through

a national company and in a corn, product used by the brewing industry. Starlin corn
has not been approved for human consumption. Although a recent study found no
allergic reactions that could be traced to consumption of the Star link products, the
larger question — how the agricultural industry can accurately segregate GM from
non-GM produces — remains unanswered. The inability to segregate crops may lead

13
to a situation where all products are de-valued (particularly in the international
market, as discussed below) because they cannot be certified GM-free.

14
3. Harm to other organisms

Another concern
cantering on impacts of biotechnology is possible harm
of GM seeds and crops to other, beneficial organisms. Very little research exists to
support this concern. A study performed at Cornell University received significant
publicity. This study indicated that a gene contained within Bt corn can be harmful
to the larvae of a monarch butterfly when windblown onto milkweed leaves. But
subsequent research has indicated that the actual level of Bt on milkweed plants
in a real-life scenario do not reach the levels that produce a toxic result in the
larvae.
In fact, this l
ater research suggests that the impact of Bt corn when
genetically placed in the corn is far less damaging to non-target insect
Population.

15
C. Concerns in marketing GM and non-GM products

1. Potential loss of domestic markets due to uncertainties

Although the domestic market has generally responded positively to GM

products, farmers fear that the uncertain effects of the products may "spook"
domestic consumers. This uncertainty is grounded in the lingering public
perception that GM crops pose a hidden health risk to humans and that these
crops are not being adequately regulated at the federal level.

2. Current problems with international markets

GM crops are not univers

ally accepted throughout the international
market. Trading blocs such as the European Union (EU) have banned the import
of crops with inserted genes, citing concerns about human health and the
environment. The EU has thus far not been forced to accept GM crops because it
has other sources of supply rather than the United States. Brazil, for example,
does not allow the use of GM crops, and remains a viable source of supply for
those countries that will not import GM crops.

The hesitancy of the United States' international trading partners to accept

GM crops impacts the marketability of these crops. With good reason, farmers
fear losing the ability to sell commodities to these partners. The financial impacts
have been significant. In 1996, American exports of corn and soybeans to the EU

totalled $3 billion. In 2000, these exports had dropped to $1 billion. Further

actions on the part of the EU to regulate American imports may have a further
impact on farmers.

16
 Findings
 Yield Increase: Some research indicates that certain GM crops have led to increased yields,
resulting in higher profits for farmers.

 Reduced Pesticide Use: Certain GM crops are engineered to be resistant to pests, reducing
the need for chemical pesticides and lowering input costs for farmers.

 Labor Savings: GM crops with built-in pest resistance may require less labour for pest
control, allowing farmers to allocate resources elsewhere.

 Risk Management: GM crops engineered for traits like drought tolerance or herbicide
resistance can help farmers mitigate risks associated with unpredictable weather conditions
or weed infestations.

 Income Generation: Farmers growing GM crops may benefit economically due to increased
productivity and potentially higher market prices for GM varieties.

 Technology Access: Adoption of GM crops may require farmers to purchase patented seeds
and associated technologies, raising concerns about dependence on seed companies and
potential cost increases.

 Environmental Impact: There are debates about the environmental impact of GM crops,
including concerns about biodiversity loss, unintended gene flow, and the emergence of
resistant pests or weeds.

17
 Suggestion
Longitudinal Studies: Conduct longitudinal studies to track the adoption and impact of GM


crops on farmers over time.

Comparative Analysis: Compare the performance of farms cultivating GM crops with those


using non-GM or conventional farming practices.

Case Studies: Conduct detailed case studies in different regions or countries to understand


the specific challenges and opportunities associated with the adoption of GM crops by

farmers.

Surveys and Interviews: Use surveys, interviews, and focus groups to gather qualitative


data on farmer perceptions, attitudes, and experiences related to GM crops.

Economic Modelling: Develop economic models to simulate the potential impacts of GM



crop adoption on farmer incomes, agricultural productivity, food security, and rural

development.

18
 Environmental Assessment: Assess the environmental implications of GM crop cultivation


on farmers' lands, including changes in biodiversity, soil health, water use, and pesticide

residues.

Conclusions
Perhaps the only conclusion to be drawn from a consideration of the
benefits and concerns raised by GM seeds is that neither full-scale adoption nor
full-scale rejection is a viable option. The technology may be more appropriate
for farmers that have difficulty spraying pesticides and herbicides. GM seeds may
work well for farm areas that are inaccessible to tractors or close to water bodies,
or in places where winds are high.

Conversely, GM seeds may be least appropriate for farmers who are

particularly reliant on a stable market. The uncertainty surrounding consumer
acceptance of GM products, particularly in foreign markets, is a risk that may
simply be unacceptable to some farmers. Certainly, GM seeds are a
revolutionary technology in the agricultural industry. Certainly, too, the
potential benefits of these seeds promise to be considerable. But an
uneducated acceptance of this technology by farmers is not the proper
response. The technology of GM seeds and the attendant legal issues raise
concerns that may work against an individual farmer. The best response of every
farmer is to educate himself about this technology and to carefully read all legal
documents before deciding to plant GM seeds. It is hoped that this paper might
helpful.

19
 References
 ChatGPT

 Pennstatlaw.psu.edu

 Envirnmemtalevidence.in

 Wikipidia.com

20