IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bdu/ojtijf/v7y2024i2p22-32id2595.html

Potential Risks and Benefits Associated With the Genetic Modification of Crops for Improved Nutritional Content in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Julius Lungelo

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the study was to examine potential risks and benefits associated with the genetic modification of crops for improved nutritional content in South Africa Methodology: This study adopted a desk methodology. A desk study research design is commonly known as secondary data collection. This is basically collecting data from existing resources preferably because of its low cost advantage as compared to a field research. Our current study looked into already published studies and reports as the data was easily accessed through online journals and libraries. Findings: The study revealed that the genetic modification of crops addresses global challenges related to malnutrition, food insecurity, and public health. By enhancing the levels of essential nutrients such as iron, zinc, vitamin A, and folate in crops, genetically modified biofortified varieties have the potential to improve the nutritional status and well-being of populations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Moreover, the adoption of GM biofortified crops has been shown to increase agricultural productivity, reduce production costs, and enhance economic returns for farmers, contributing to rural development and poverty alleviation. However, the potential risks associated with the genetic modification of crops cannot be overlooked. Concerns about food safety, environmental impact, and socio-economic equity necessitate careful consideration and proactive risk management strategies. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Risk Perception Theory & Social Construction of Technology may be used to anchor future studies on potential risks and benefits associated with the genetic modification of crops for improved nutritional content in South Africa. Engage stakeholders, including farmers, consumers, civil society organizations, and government agencies, in decision-making processes related to the development, regulation, and deployment of GM biofortified crops can foster transparency, trust, and inclusivity, leading to more socially acceptable and sustainable outcomes in practice. Develop science-based regulatory frameworks that balance the potential risks and benefits of GM biofortified crops, ensuring safety, environmental sustainability, and public health protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Julius Lungelo, 2024. "Potential Risks and Benefits Associated With the Genetic Modification of Crops for Improved Nutritional Content in South Africa," International Journal of Food Sciences, IPRJB, vol. 7(2), pages 22-32.
    • Handle: RePEc:bdu:ojtijf:v:7:y:2024:i:2:p:22-32:id:2595
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://iprjb.org/journals/IJF/article/view/2595
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Caswell, Margriet, 2006. "The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the USA," Economic Information Bulletin 33897, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Yonglin Shen & Xiuguo Liu, 2015. "Phenological Changes of Corn and Soybeans over U.S. by Bayesian Change-Point Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-23, May.
    2. Sylvie Bonny, 2011. "Herbicide-tolerant Transgenic Soybean over 15 Years of Cultivation: Pesticide Use, Weed Resistance, and Some Economic Issues. The Case of the USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Funk, Samuel M. & Bergtold, Jason S., 2014. "Cost Efficiency Changes and Adoption of Biotechnology Enhanced Soybeans in Kansas," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2014, pages 1-10.
    4. Vijesh V. Krishna & Matin Qaim, 2008. "Consumer Attitudes toward GM Food and Pesticide Residues in India," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 233-251.
    5. Sampath Jayasinghe & John C. Beghin & Giancarlo Moschini, 2017. "Determinants Of World Demand For U.S. Corn Seeds: The Role Of Trade Costs," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 17, pages 309-320, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Moschini, GianCarlo, 2008. "Biotechnology and the Development of Food Markets: Retrospect and Prospects," Hebrew University of Jerusalem Archive 42811, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    7. Jayasinghe, Sampath & Beghin, John C. & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2009. "Determinants of World Demand for U.S. Corn Seeds: The Role of Trade Costs," Hebrew University of Jerusalem Archive 46589, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    8. Wang, Sun Ling & Nehring, Richard & Mosheim, Roberto & Njuki, Eric, 2024. "Measurement of Output, Inputs, and Total Factor Productivity in U.S. Agricultural Productivity Accounts," Technical Bulletins 344773, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Scott M. Swinton & Braeden Deynze, 2017. "Hoes to Herbicides: Economics of Evolving Weed Management in the United States," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(3), pages 560-574, July.
    10. Affuso, Ermanno & Hite, Diane & Wilson, Norbert W.L., 2015. "A Stochastic Frontier Analysis To Examine Research Priorities For Genetically Engineered Peanuts," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(3), pages 359-381, August.
    11. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    12. Yoo, Do-il, 2014. "Farm Heterogeneity in Biotechnology Adoption with Risk and Learning: an Application to U.S. Corn," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170656, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Huffman, Wallace E., 2010. "Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods: Traits, Labels and Diverse Information," Staff General Research Papers Archive 31835, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Frisvold, George, 2010. "Resistance Management and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biotechnology," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188091, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    15. Xiaodong Du & David A. Hennessy & William M. Edwards, 2007. "Determinants of Iowa Cropland Cash Rental Rates: Testing Ricardian Rent Theory," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 07-wp454, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    16. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Livingston, Michael J. & Mitchell, Lorraine & Wechsler, Seth, 2014. "Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," Economic Research Report 164263, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:bdu:ojtijf:v:7:y:2024:i:2:p:22-32:id:2595. 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: Chief Editor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://iprjb.org/journals/IJF/ .

    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.