Can genetically modified crops help us adapt to climate change?

As southern Europe has been scourged by the rage of uncontrollable wildfires this summer, the devastating effects of climate change are once again baring their teeth. With climate scientists warning that the planet could breach the symbolic 1.5°C threshold in as little as three years, and a despairing sense of political inaction, certain industries have been readying themselves for the increasing likelihood of extreme weather events. This includes the biotech sector, which, among other solutions, has long been working on the development of genetically modified crops. The question is, can these resilient plants really help us adapt to climate change and ensure global food security?   

What are genetically modified crops?  

Genetically modified crops, or genetically engineered crops, are essentially plants that have had their DNA altered through the process of genetic engineering. By editing, removing, or inserting particular genes – often sourced from different plants, microbes, or other living things – scientists can equip these crops with traits that would not naturally develop within the species. In turn, these modifications can make crops more resistant to pests, diseases, or herbicides, improve their nutritional value, or enhance their tolerance to harsh environmental conditions. 

Humans have been using traditional modification methods like selective breeding and crossbreeding to create plants and animals with more desirable traits for thousands of years. But changing plants and animals in this way can take a long time, and it is difficult to make very specific changes. This is where the advent of genetic engineering was viewed as a breakthrough solution for breeding crops. Developed in the 1970s when biochemists Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen successfully inserted DNA from one bacterium into another, it allowed scientists to make similar changes to traditional breeding methods, only in a more rapid and targeted way.  

According to Shely Aronov, chief executive officer (CEO) and co-founder of InnerPlant, the 1980s marked a pivotal leap forward for genetic engineering, as it began targeting agricultural challenges like pest infestations, crop diseases, and environmental stresses. “The first wave of GMO produce introduced to consumers – summer squash, soybeans, cotton, corn, papayas, tomatoes, potatoes, and canola – was developed with DNA-level modifications to enhance resistance, improve yields, and deliver traits that traditional methods could not produce.” 

This “first wave” was introduced into the U.S. throughout the 1990s, with the first genetically modified food product entering the market in 1994 in the form of the Flavr Savr tomato, which had been genetically modified by California-based biotech Calgene to slow its ripening process, delaying softening and rotting.  

Nowadays, you will find an array of genetically modified produce being sold on supermarket shelves. In fact, more than 90% of U.S. corn, soybeans, and upland cotton is produced using genetically engineered varieties and, as of October 2024, more than 30 countries had granted cultivation approvals to genetically modified crops.  

Climate preparedness: Can these engineered crops ensure global food security in the face of global warming? 

These figures indicate a significant growth in utilizing biotechnology as a sustainable tool to address global challenges such as food security and climate change. On that note, are genetically modified crops really a viable solution to help us adapt to global warming and to provide global food security? 

“Yes. As global warming intensifies, agriculture faces both a climate crisis and a looming food security challenge. Extreme weather, shifting pest patterns, and shrinking arable land are threatening yields at the same time that demand for food is projected to surge, creating a predicted global food shortage by 2050,” stressed Aronov. 

“Genetically engineered crops can help meet this challenge by equipping plants with traits such as pest and disease resistance and the ability to thrive in changing climates. This enables farmers to maintain yields while reducing reliance on chemical inputs. Agriculture accounts for roughly 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and inefficiencies like over-application of fertilizers and pesticides not only cost billions but also harm soil health, biodiversity, and water quality. In fact, as much as 30% of the $250 billion spent annually on fertilizers and pesticides is wasted.” 

According to PG Economics, genetically modified crops have already increased global food, feed, and fibre production by nearly one billion tonnes (between 1996 and 2020), while helping farmers who grow these crops reduce the environmental footprint associated with their crop protection practices by more than 17%. They have also allowed farmers to adopt more sustainable practices, such as reduced tillage, which decreases the burning of fossil fuels and retains more carbon in the soil. The result of this is that carbon emissions have been reduced by 39.1 billion kilograms, arising from reduced fuel use of 14.7 billion litres – the equivalent of removing 25.9 million cars from the roads.  

If genetically engineered crops had not been grown in 2020, for example, PG Economics estimates that an additional 23.6 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide would have been emitted into the atmosphere, which is the equivalent of adding 15.6 million cars to the roads. 

Genetically modified crop technology has also increased yields via improved control of pests and weeds. For example, insect-resistant crop technology used in cotton and maize has (between 1996 to 2020) increased yields by an average of 17.7% for insect-resistant maize and 14.5% for insect-resistant cotton relative to conventional production systems. Farmers who grow insect-resistant soybeans commercially in South America have seen an average 9.3% increase in yields since 2013. 

In addition to making them insect-resistant, there are several other ways in which crops are being engineered to solve a variety of climate challenges, from water scarcity to rising temperatures and shifting pest pressures. “For example, researchers are engineering crops to be more resilient to drought by modifying traits that help plants conserve water and maintain productivity under stress,” explained Aronov. 

“Other climate-focused modifications include improving heat tolerance by altering proteins that protect plant cells from high temperatures, and increasing the crop’s ability to fight off pests, viruses, and disease. Each of these modifications begins with identifying genes that are connected to the stress reaction and amplifying them.” 

And it certainly seems like these modifications are having an impact. Overall, in 25 years of widespread use, genetically modified crop technology has been responsible for the additional global production of 330 million tonnes of soybeans, 595 million tonnes of maize, 37 million tonnes of cotton lint, 15.8 million tonnes of canola, and 1.9 million tonnes of sugar beet.  

These figures are impressive and could well increase in the years to come as more countries adopt the technology in a bid to provide global food security in the face of global warming.  

New technologies related to genetically modified crops

• A Novel Mechanism for Improving Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Food Crops – Stellenbosch University
• Revolutionizing Agriculture: Enhancing Crop Resilience in the Face of Adverse Conditions – Howard University
• GRP8 as a Target for Improving Plant Stress Response to Water and Nutrient Starvation – University of Pennsylvania

Which companies are helping to drive forward the field of genetically modified crops? 

The most notable players in the genetically modified crops market are Bayer, Corteva, and Syngenta.  

Bayer currently stands as the largest genetically modified crops company following its acquisition of Monsanto in 2018. While Monsanto was previously the dominant force in the genetically modified seed market, the merger created a powerhouse with a massive share of the global seed supply and significant influence on the industry.  

In fact, Bayer and Corteva control the vast majority of patents related to genetically engineered crops, owning just under 80% between them, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The two companies also control most of the market for corn and soybeans, as well as large swaths of pesticide markets. Meanwhile, Syngenta, another GM crop giant, also owns numerous corn and soybean patents. 

Although the majority of the market is taken up by these big three, there are also many smaller companies pushing forward genetically modified crops. For example, Aronov’s own company, Innerplant, is developing genetically engineered crops that can “talk” to farmers: “By embedding traits into plants that cause them to emit specific optical signals when they experience stresses such as lack of water, nutrient deficiency, or pest and disease pressure, we turn crops into living sensors,” explained Aronov. 

This allows farmers to detect these early distress signals from the ground, drones, or satellites, giving them precise, real-time insight into what their fields need. The information means that they only need to intervene when and where necessary, rather than applying water, fertilizer, or pesticides broadly. “The impact is twofold: farmers can protect yields while potentially cutting inputs, and the environment benefits from reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved soil health, and protection of biodiversity. This level of precision is essential for making agriculture more climate-resilient and ensuring food security for a growing global population,” said Aronov.   

InnerPlant is currently working with John Deere and Syngenta to develop a precision agriculture platform that links genetically engineered crops with equipment and crop protection tools. The joint effort is concentrated on plants that emit a fluorescent signal when they detect fungal diseases – often weeks before the human eye can see them – allowing for earlier, targeted treatment. 

The potential dangers of genetically modified crops: Concerns over health risks and corporate control  

On the surface, genetically modified crops certainly seem to be a perfect solution to our planet’s problems. However, there are some concerns shared between the public and experts alike about health risks, corporate control, and even the environment.  

This skepticism can largely be seen in Europe. Although the European Union (EU) is a significant importer of genetically modified crops for animal feed, it has stringent regulations for genetically modified organisms; all crops of this kind are subject to a rigorous authorisation process by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and any products containing them must adhere to strict EU labelling and traceability rules. In fact, only one genetically modified maize variety is authorised for cultivation in the EU, grown in small quantities in Spain and Portugal. Most EU countries have banned the cultivation of GM crops in all or part of their territories.  

Public opinion on genetically modified crops is also largely sceptical. According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted between October 2019 and March 2020, almost half of the people in 20 countries around the world believe that these foods are unsafe to eat. The majority of people in places like Russia (70%), Italy (62%), India (58%), and South Korea (57%) said that they view genetically modified foods as generally unsafe to eat.  

The balance of opinion tilts negative even in places where sizable shares said they do not know enough about these foods to offer a view. For example, 47% of Spaniards said that they are unsafe, while just 13% said they are safe. Australia is the only place surveyed where at least as many view them as safe as view them to be unsafe (31% to 31%). 

Even in the U.S., where genetically modified foods are very commonplace on supermarket shelves, around half of adults are wary of their health effects, with 51% believing that they are worse for health than non-modified foods. But, interestingly, the U.S. public does have positive views on genetically modified foods in other areas, with about three-quarters (74%) saying it is at least fairly likely that they will increase the global food supply, and 62% saying that they are very or fairly likely to lead to more affordably priced food. 

To address concerns about transparency in the food supply, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) implemented the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) in 2022 – something that Congress passed, and President Obama signed, in 2016. This mandate is designed to establish an obligation for food manufacturers to disclose to consumers whether their food products are bioengineered or contain bioengineered ingredients; in other words, it tells them if their food has been genetically modified. Although the intent of this change may have been to avoid the contentious history of “genetically modified foods” by renaming them, there are concerns that it might create more confusion for consumers, as they are more familiar with the term “GM” (genetically modified), and it could instead undermine consumer trust if they see it as a tactic to mask terms they commonly understand.  

The regulations also do not require manufacturers to identify the specific bioengineered ingredients in their products, which could result in consumers making incorrect assumptions about what is bioengineered in the food supply, ultimately putting them off buying it, even if the “bioengineered” ingredient is only a minor one. Disclosure by ingredient, which is required in the EU, would perhaps provide useful information to consumers instead of consumers potentially misinterpreting the scope of the product’s bioengineering. 

Another worry regarding genetically modified crops is corporate control over our food. As mentioned previously, Bayer and Corteva own the majority of products in the genetically modified crop market. There are fears that these companies seek to increase their control over the future of food and farming by extensively patenting plants and portfolios of new genetically modified organism techniques.  

For example, Corteva holds a patent for a process modifying the genome of a cell using CRISPR and claims the intellectual property rights to any cells, seeds, and plants that include the same genetic information, whether in broccoli, maize, soy, rice, wheat, cotton, barley, or sunflower. Patents on plants and other living organisms have been controversial for decades because they restrict farmers’ access to seeds and impede breeders from developing urgently needed plants adaptable to climate change. 

Additionally, as Dr. Anneleen Kenis, a lecturer in political ecology and environmental justice at Brunel University London, and Dr. Barbara Van Dyck, a research fellow in political agroecology at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, said in an article from 2023, only a small proportion of the genetically modified crops being developed deal with concerns related to the climate. Big companies like Corteva and Bayer have an agricultural model that relies on huge amounts of fuel for distribution and places farmers in a state of dependence on heavy machinery and farm inputs derived from fossil fuels. Research has found that farming in this way causes soil depletion and biodiversity loss, and also increases vulnerability to pests and diseases, necessitating the development of different and potentially more toxic pesticides and herbicides. 

Nevertheless, there is evidence that public opinion on genetically modified crops is beginning to change. The number of EU citizens concerned about the presence of genetically modified organisms in the environment decreased from 30% in 2002 to 19% in 2011, and the level of concern around the use of engineered ingredients in food also dropped from 63% in 2005 to 27% in 2019. It also seems as though certain Gen Z populations have a more favorable view of genetically modified organisms compared to other grocery shoppers. For example, in Great Britain, less than a fifth of adults mainly or partly responsible for grocery shopping said they think that genetically modified organisms are not that unhealthy (18%); but the views of Gen Z adults who do the grocery shopping are more finely balanced, with 33% of them saying that genetically modified foods and additives are not that unhealthy.  

Aronov concurred with the sentiment of these Gen Z populations, telling Labiotech: “Decades of research and regulatory reviews have shown that genetically modified crops on the market are just as safe to eat as conventional varieties. They undergo rigorous testing for potential allergens, toxins, and nutritional differences before they can be approved for cultivation or sale, and these standards are upheld by agencies such as the U.S. FDA, USDA, and EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], as well as international bodies.” 

Indeed, when genetically modified crops were first brought to the market in the 1990s, the FDA policy stated that foods from genetically modified plants must meet the same requirements, including the same safety standards, as foods derived from traditionally bred plants. 

The debate around genetically engineering our food will likely continue for years to come, but given that the genetically modified crops market size is expected to reach $35.56 billion by 2031, there is clearly a demand for these types of crops. And, although there may be some skepticism around the intentions of large corporations like Bayer and Corteva, there are several smaller biotechs out there developing genetically modified crops as a genuine attempt to mitigate global warming and provide us with the global food security we will so desperately need if things spiral further out of control.