# High-tech agriculture or agroecology for tomorrow's agriculture?

Sylvie Bonny

► To cite this version:

Sylvie Bonny. High-tech agriculture or agroecology for tomorrow's agriculture?. Harvard College Review of Environment & Society, 2017, 4 (Spring 2017), pp.28-34. hal-01536016

HAL Id: hal-01536016

https://hal.science/hal-01536016

Submitted on 9 Jun 2017

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

HARVARD COLLEGE REVIEW OF
ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

ENGINEERING
OUR FOOD

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

A DISCUSSION
OF GENETICALLY
MODIFIED CROPS
# TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 Letter from the Editor
*Devin Clark*

4 Genetically Modified Organisms in the Food System
*Ruth MacDonald*

8 The Reality (and Illusion) of GMO Opposition
*Katherine Tutrone*

10 Genetically Modified Organisms: From a Breeder's Context
*P. Stephen Baenziger*

12 Genetic Technologies and the Transformation of Agricultural Production
*David Hennessy*

17 Nurturing the World: Crossing Agriculture with Nutrition
*Calestous Juma*

19 Necessary Regulatory Changes to Improve the Federal Government's Oversight of Genetically Engineered Crops
*Gregory Jaffe*

22 Genetically Modified Organisms between the International Legal Systems for Regulating Biological Diversity and Trade
*Sam Halabi*

25 Can Genetically Engineered Crops Solve Problems?
*Joanna Sax*

28 High-tech Agriculture or Agroecology for Tomorrow's Agriculture?
*Sylvie Bonny*

31 References and Photo Credits
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

# HIGH-TECH AGRICULTURE OR AGROECOLOGY FOR TOMORROW'S AGRICULTURE?

## Sylvie Bonny

Sylvie Bonny is a research scientist at INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research). She works in agricultural economics, notably on techno-economic change in agriculture, such as the impact of GM crops.

Today high-tech agriculture (particularly biotechnology) and agroecology are often considered as opposed pathways. However, when one wishes to address the issues of food security, there is no technological panacea. High-tech agriculture and agroecology should not be so deeply opposed. Rather, they should be combined as much as possible. Agroecology is defined as "*the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable food systems*" (Gliessman, 2007).

*Consensus on the need for more sustainable agriculture, yet strong controversy over the right course to take*

While many people call for sustainable agriculture and better nutrition or diet, very different answers are given, particularly to the issue of "how to sustainably feed the growing population in the next decades."

Among them, two main pathways can be roughly identified. The first is to increase agricultural

and food production, mainly by the applications of science and technological advances to enhance production, efficiency, and better use of resources. This leads to recommending high-tech agriculture, especially involving biotech crops, new information technologies, precision farming, robots, and other techno-scientific advances.

The second is to implement ecological and grassroot technologies and practices, as well as participatory research, more local supply, diet change, etc. This leads to recommending agroecology including its practices, knowledge and social aspects. Agroecology "*is based on applying ecological concepts and principles to optimize interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment while taking into consideration the social aspects that need to be addressed for a sustainable and fair food system*" (FAO, 2017).

These two pathways are frequently seen as opposed. Their respective supporters, proponents, and stakeholders are often different, and rather frequently in conflict. Usually the agricultural input industries, i.e. the farm machinery industry, the agro-chemical and seed industry, the feed industry, etc. put forward high-tech agriculture. It is considered as the best way to efficiently use inputs, manage costs, and
respect the environment while being highly
productive. This is presented as a way to increase
production without requiring too much additional
farmland or water.

At the same time some farmers' organizations
and a certain number of scientists and organizations
promote agroecology based on understanding and
managing ecological processes and biological
functions to increase and sustain agricultural
productivity (FAO, 2015; Hatt et al., 2016). They put
forward several aspects, such as (Valenzuela, 2016):
– the conservation of resources and the
implementation of eco-efficient and integrated
farming systems with few chemicals, particularly few
chemical pesticides,
– the promotion of biodiversity: genetic diversity,
species diversity as well as ecosystem diversity,
– a better management of physical and biological
resources,
– the regeneration and maintenance of soil quality,
– the recycling of nutrients,
– the diversification of cropping systems, the
association of crop and animal production, and also
of trees and wild vegetation,
– landscape-wide management.

The points of view of scientists in the public
research sector appear to be diverse. While a great
part of scientists involved in plant breeding promote
biotech, a certain number of scientists involved in
agricultural sciences, ecology, or social sciences seem
to be keener for agroecology. In each country the
adopted policies of the Ministries of Agriculture also
play a role, as well as the views of the public and
cultural aspects. Some countries such as the USA
appear to invest mainly in high-tech agriculture, while
others such as some European countries tend in
addition to favor agroecological approaches, at least
in part. For example, in Europe many people are
opposed to GMOs while in the USA in the last 20
years their general acceptance has been better: so, in
2015 the EU grew only 0.13 million hectares (Mha) of
GM crops while the USA grew 71 Mha. By contrast
there were 11 Mha of organic area in the EU and
approximately 2.2 in the USA. However, research and
development (R&D) expenditures geared to high-tech
agriculture seem to be much higher than those to
agroecology, especially since a growing part of
agricultural R&D is made by the private sector
(Fuglie, 2014). Even public research in agroecology is

rather limited (DeLonge, 2016; UCS, 2016;
Vanloqueren, Baret, 2009).

The term “agroecology” has three main
dimensions: a scientific discipline, a social movement,
and farming practices (Wezel et al., 2009). Here we
focus mainly on the scientific aspects. However, some
scientists and organizations, particularly some peasant
organizations such as Via Campesina, also emphasize
socio-political aspects of agroecology. "Agroecology is
not only about farming practices, it is a holistic approach that
includes cultural diversity and social justice as important aims
of our food and farming systems. Agroecology is a central pillar
of food sovereignty, a global grassroots movement working to
combat poverty, inequality and hunger (...). World hunger is
caused primarily by poverty, lack of democracy and unequal
access to land, water and other resources and infrastructure,
especially among women. Rather than simply producing more
food under unequal conditions, the solution to hunger hinges on
creating more democratic and fair political and economic systems
that expand access to resources” (FoEE, 2016).

A strong controversy, but also some commonalities

High-tech agriculture also needs to take
agroecological aspects into account to avoid
ecological and social damage. The use of advanced
technologies doesn't exempt one from following good
agricultural practices such as crop rotations, crop
diversification, and sustainable use of natural
resources. High-tech agriculture also requires
agroecological knowledge for the proper design and
implementation of its technologies. For example, GM
herbicide-tolerant crops should have been cultivated
by taking into account rotations of herbicides and
crops to avoid the development of herbicide-resistant
weeds that have become a major issue in the last few
years (Bonny, 2016). GM crops with single, double,
even triple gene resistance to some insects are not
sufficient: the durability of this genetic resistance
requires proper management and an association with
other practices in order to prevent a rapid loss of
efficacy.

Besides, the applications of high technologies
will not be able to ensure sustainable farming if they
are not sustainably used and implemented. They need
to be linked with good agricultural, economic,
environmental, and socio-political practices.
Furthermore, their accessibility, affordability, and
conditions of use are essential.
Agroecology needs much techno-scientific knowledge, many scientific advances, and technological tools, in addition to local and farmer knowledge. Agroecology also requires very high knowledge, both tacit and practical as well as scientific and technological. The application of ecological principles to agricultural and food systems requires skills in agro-ecosystems, biodiversity, nutrition, etc.

For example, much research and experimentation are needed on intercropping, mixture of varieties, integrated pest management, biocontrol, nutrient recycling, soil enhancement techniques, biodiversity, agroforestry impacts, landscape design (with interactions between crops, hedges, wetlands, and semi-natural elements), diversification of farm production, etc. Much research is needed so that these practices can be adopted and be productive enough. Re-embedding agriculture in nature and relying much more on functional biodiversity and internal resources need a lot of research work, particularly if we take into account the challenges of climate change, population growth, and the loss of arable land due to encroachment of urban areas.

Therefore, both high-tech agriculture and agroecology are in need of scientific, technical, practical, and local knowledge. Both are knowledge intensive and need multidisciplinary approaches.

*The governance of economic, social and environmental aspects is at stake*

An important aspect of innovations is the governance of their context, i.e. their socioeconomic and sociopolitical environment, their affordability and conditions of access. These last aspects depend notably on the direction, implementation and regulation of innovations whether agroecological or high-tech. These characteristics mainly stem from the general governance of the agri-food sector. However, this governance doesn't depend predominantly on the agri-food sector itself, but mainly on the general governance of economic, social, and environmental issues.

Regarding food security, a high level of food production, whether globally or just in certain countries, is not sufficient per se to avoid food insecurity. One major reason of food insecurity is poverty, not the lack of food production globally. The four pillars of food security are the physical

availability of food, the economic and physical access to food (notably its affordability), food utilization, and the stability of these three components (FAO, 2009). Therefore technological aspects are not sufficient; sociopolitical factors are also essential.

> **“Besides, the applications of high technologies will not be able to ensure sustainable farming if they are not sustainably used and implemented. They need to be linked with good agricultural, economic, environmental, and socio-political practices.”**

Thus, high-tech agriculture and agroecology should not be so deeply opposed, they should rather be combined as far as possible. However, this implies changes in their governance. For example, high-tech and biotechnology should not predominantly be in the hands of companies which are highly dependent on financial markets requiring high and very rapid profitability (which could not be the case in the agricultural sector). There should also be better communication between the scientific sector and the general public, to avoid reciprocal mistrust, or even rejection, as has been the case for GMOs in several countries.

*Conclusion*

High-tech agriculture should not hold agroecological principles and practices in contempt. Likewise, agroecology should not position itself as opposed to techno-scientific advances. Given the magnitude of the challenges that humanity is facing, there is no room for sterile opposition, or for reliance upon one single alternative, whether that is high-tech agriculture or agroecology
# References

## Genetically Modified Organisms in the Food System

Ruth MacDonald

Bourn, D., and Prescott, J. (2002). *A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods*. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 42(1):1-34.

Bruening, G., and Lyons, J.M. (2000, July-August). *The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato*. California Agriculture, Volume 54:4, 2000.

European Commission (2001-2010). *A decade of EU-funded GMO research*. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010.

Ewen, S.W.B., and Pusztai, A. (1999). *Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galantus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine*. The Lancet 354, 1353-1354, 1999.

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Wechsler, S., Livingston, M. and Mitchell, L. (2014, February). *Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States*. USDA-Economic Research Service Report Number 162.

Gasser, C.S., and Fraley, R.T. (1989). *Genetically engineering plants for crop improvement*. Science, vol. 244: (4910), 1293-1299, 1989

Hoefkens, C., Sioen, I., Baert, K., De Meulenaer, B., De Henauw, S., Vandekinderen, I., Devlieghere, F., Opsomer, A., Verbeke, W., Van Camp, J. (2010). *Consuming organic versus conventional vegetables: The effect on nutrient and contamination intakes*. Food and Chemical Toxicology 48, 3058-3066.

International Food Information Council Foundation (2016). *2016 Food and Health Survey*. Retrieved from IFIC website http://www.foodinsight.org/articles/2016-food-and-health-survey-food-decision-2016-impact-growing-national-food-dialogue

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016). *Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects*. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23395.

Pew Research Center (2015, January). *Public and scientists' views on science and society*. Survey results retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

USDA Animal and Health Inspection Service (2017). *Petitions for Determination of Nonregulated Status*. Retrieved from https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/permits-notifications-petitions/petitions/petition-status

U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (2011). *2011 USFRA Farmer/Rancher Survey*. Retrieved from http://www.fooddialogues.com/press-release/antibiotics/nationwide-surveys-reveal-disconnect-between-americans-and-their-food

United Kingdom Parliamentary Business (1999, March). Select Committee on Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www/publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmsctech/286/9030802.htm

Winter, C. (2015, July). *Chronic dietary exposure to pesticide residues in the United States*. International Journal of Food Contamination, 10 July 2015: DOI 10.1186/s40550-015-0018-y.

Zhao, X., Chambers IV, E., Matta, Z., Loughin, T.M. and Carey, E.E. (2007). *Consumer sensory analysis of organically and conventionally grown vegetables*. Journal of Food Science 72(2), S87-S91, 2007.

## The Reality (and Illusion) of GMO Opposition

Katherine Tutrone

Blancke, S., Breusegem, F. V., Jaeger, G. D., Braeckman, J., & Montagu, M. V. (2015). Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. *Trends in Plant Science*, 20(7).

Cattaneo, M. G., Yafuso, C., Schmidt, C., Huang, C., Rahman, M., Olson, C., Ellers-Kirk, C., Orr, B., Marsh, S., Antilla, L., Dutilleul, P., and Carriere, Y. (2006). Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 103(20).

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. *Journal of Behavioral Decision Making*, 13(1).

National survey of healthcare consumers: genetically engineered food (National Survey). (2010). Retrieved from http://www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/NPR_report_GeneticEngineeredFood-1.pdf

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). *Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects*. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

Rozin, P., Fischler, C., & Shields-Argelès, C. (2012). European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. *Appetite*, 59(2).

Sternberg, R. (1982). Natural, unnatural, and supernatural concepts. *Cognitive Psychology*, 14.
# Genetically Modified Organisms: From a Breeder's Context

## *P. Stephen Baenziger*

Baenziger, P.S., and R.M. DePauw. (2009). Wheat breeding: Procedures and strategies. In B.F. Carver (ed.) Wheat: Science and Trade (275-308). Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

Cardi, Teodoro, C. Neal Stewart Jr. (2016). Progress of targeted genome modification approaches in higher plants. *Plant Cell Reports*, 1401-1416.

Flavell, R.B. (2016). Greener revolutions for all. *Nature Biotechnology*, 34, 1106-1110.

Moghissi, A.A., S. Pei, and Y. Liu. (2016). Golden rice: Scientific, regulatory and public information processes of a genetically modified organism. *Critical Reviews in Biotechnology*, 36, 535-7.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). *Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects*. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23395.

Ye, X., S. Al-Babili, A. Klöti, J. Zhang, P. Lucca, P. Beyer, and I. Potrykus. (2000). Engineering the provitamin A (-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. *Science*, 287, 303-305.

Zhu, C., L. Bortesi, C. Baysal, R.M. Twyman, R. Fischer, T. Capell, S. Schillberg, and P. Christou. (2016). Characteristics of genome editing mutations in cereal crops. *Trends in Plant Science*, 22, 38-52.

# Genetic Technologies and the Transformation of Agricultural Production

## *David Hennessy*

Berry, W. (2005). Local knowledge in the age of information. *The Hudson Review*, 58(3), 399-410.

Chavas, J.-P., G. Shi, and J. Lauer. (2014). The effects of GM technology on maize yield. *Crop Science*, 54(4), 1331-1335.

Duvick, D.N. (2005). The contribution of breeding to yield advances in maize (Zea mays L.). *Advances in Agronomy* 86, 83-145.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. *Science* 162(3859), 1243-1248.

Hutchison, W.D., E.C. Burkness, P.D. Mitchell, R.D. Moon, T.W. Leslie, S.J. Fleischer, M. Abrahamson, K.L. Hamilton, K.L. Steffey, M.E. Gray, R.L. Hellmich, L.V. Kaster, T.E. Hunt, R.J. Wright, K. Pecinovsky, T.L. Rabaey, B.R. Flood, and E.S. Raun. (2010). Areawide suppression of European corn borer with *Bt* maize reaps savings to non-*Bt* maize growers. *Science*, 330(6001), 222-225.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23395.

Perry, E.D., G. Moschini, and D.A. Hennessy. (2016a). Testing for complementarity: Glyphosate tolerant soybeans and conservation tillage. *American Journal of Agricultural Economics*, 98(3), 765-784.

Perry, E.D., F. Ciliberto, D.A. Hennessy, and G. Moschini. (2016b). Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. maize and soybeans. *Science Advances*, 2(8), 1324-1338.

Pleasants, J.M. and K.S. Oberhauser. (2013). Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. *Insect Conservation and Diversity*, 6(2), 135-144.

Qaim, M., and D. Zilberman. (2003). Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. *Science*, 299(5608), 900-902.

Xu, Z., D.A. Hennessy, K. Sardana, and G. Moschini. (2013). The effects of GM technology on maize yield. *Crop Science*, 53(3), 735-745.

# Nurturing the World: Crossing Agriculture with Nutrition

## *Calestous Juma*

Fan, S. and Pandya-Lorch, R. eds. (2012). *Reshaping Agriculture for Nutrition and Health*, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Fresco, F. (2015). *Hamburgers in Paradise: The Story of the Food We Eat*, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.

Juma, C. (2014). Growing the Nutritional Revolution: A Plea for Niche Crops. *Nestlé Foundation Report 2013*. Switzerland: Nestlé Foundation Lausanne.

Juma, C. (2015). *The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa*, Oxford University Press, New York.

National Research Council. (1996). *Lost Crops of Africa*, Volume I: Grains. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council. (2006). *Lost Crops of Africa*, Volume II: Vegetables. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council. (2008). *Lost Crops of Africa*, Volume III: Grains. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Perkins, J. (1997). *Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes, and the Cold War*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pingali, P. (2015). Agricultural Policy and Nutrition Outcomes—Getting Beyond the Preoccupation with Staple Grains. *Food Security*, 7 (3), 583–591.

# Necessary Regulatory Changes to Improve the Federal Government's Oversight of Genetically Engineered
## Crops

### Gregory Jaffe

Annenberg Public Policy Center. (2016). Americans support GMO food labels but don't know much about safety of GM foods. *Annenberg Public Policy Center*. http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-support-gmo-food-labels-but-dont-know-much-about-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/ Accessed January 23 2017.

Code of Federal Regulations. (2017). *Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter III, Part 340*. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr340_main_02.tpl.

Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2016). The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides over food science. *Pew Research Center*. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/the-new-food-fights/. Accessed January 23 2017.

The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). *Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects*. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects. Accessed January 23 2017.

Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2015). *Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products*. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/modernizing_the_reg_system_for_biotech_products_memo_final.pdf. Accessed January 24 2017.

Pew Research Center. (2015). *Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society*. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/. Accessed January 23 2017.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2016). *Regulated Pest List*. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planhealth/import-information/permits/plants-and-plant-products-permits/prohibited/Importation-of-Plant-Parts-for-Propagation/CT_Regulated_pest_list. Accessed January 23 2017.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2017). *Petitions for Determination of Nonregulated Status*. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/permits-notifications-petitions/petitions/petition-status. Accessed January 24 2017.

United States Department of Agriculture and National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2016). *Acreage*. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre/Acre-06-30-2016.pdf. Accessed January 23 2017.

US Food and Drug Administration. (1992). *Guidance to Industry for Food Derived from New Plant Varieties*. Federal Register 57:22984.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm. Accessed January 23 2017.

US Food and Drug Administration. (2016). *Biotechnology Consultations on Food from GE Plant Varieties*. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=Biocon. Accessed January 24 2017.

The White House. (2016). *National Strategy for Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products*. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/biotech_national_strategy_final.pdf. Accessed January 23 2017.

The White House. (2017). *Update to the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology*. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2017_coordinated_framework_update.pdf.

## Genetically Modified Organisms between the International Legal Systems for Regulating Biological Diversity and Trade

### Sam Halabi

2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/en/

2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/abs/

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights art. 8, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299

Eades, D., Barkley, D., and Henry, M. (2015). South Carolina's Textile and Apparel Industries: An Analysis of Trends in Traditional and Emerging Sectors. UCED Research Report 12-2007-01.

Winter, L. (2010). Cultivating Famers' Rights: Reconciling Food Security, Indigenous Agriculture, and TRIPS. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 43:223, 249-50.

## Can genetically engineered crops solve problems?

### Joanna Sax

Conko, Gregory et al. (2016, May 06). A Risk-Based approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms. *Nature Biotechnology*, 34, 493-503.
Federoff, Nina V. (2016, November 1). Hakim's Effort to Skewer Biotech Crops in Sunday's NY Times. *OFW Law*.
http://www.ofwlaw.com/2016/11/01/hakims-effort-to-skewer-biotech-crops-in-sundays-ny-times/

Giddings, Val. (2016, November 11). Scientists' 'Open Letter' to NY Times' Public Editor brightlines Danny Hakim's 'misleading' GMO article. *Genetic Literacy Project*. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/11/11/scientists-open-letter-ny-times-public-editor-brightlines-danny-hakims-misleading-gmo-article/

Hakim, Danny. (2016, October 29). Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops. *New York Times*.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html

Moses, Vivian. (2016, September 6). The Debate over GM Crops is Making History. *Nature*, 537, 139.
http://www.nature.com/news/the-debate-over-gm-crops-is-making-history-1.20542

Prado, JR et al. (2014). Genetically Engineered Crops: From Idea to Product. *Annual Review of Plant Biology*, 65, 769-90.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24579994.

Saletan, William. (2015, July 15). Unhealthy Fixation. *Slate*.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_caseAgainst_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

Strauss, Steven and Sax, Joanna. (2016, May 6). *Nature Biotechnology*, 34, 474-77.
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v34/n5/full/nbt.3541.html

Wiedermann, Peter and Schutz, Holger. (2005). The Precautionary Principle and Risk Perception: Experimental Studies in the EMF Area. *Environmental Health Perspectives*, 113, 402-405. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1278478/

**High-tech Agriculture or Agroecology for Tomorrow's Agriculture?**

*Sylvie Bonny*

Bonny, S. (2016). Genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops, weeds, and herbicides: overview and impact. *Environmental Management*, 57(1), 31-48. Doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0589-7

DeLonge, M. S., Miles, A., and Carlisle, L. (2016). Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. *Environmental Science and Policy*, 55, 266-273.

FAO (2009). *An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security*. http://www.fao.org/3/a-al936e.pdf

FAO (2015). *Agroecology for food security and nutrition*: Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium, September 2014. 426 p.
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4729e.pdf

FAO (2017). *Agroecology Knowledge Hub*. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/agroecology/en/

FoEE (2016). *Farming for the Future: Organic and Agroecological Solutions to Feed the World*, Friends of the Earth Europe, Brussels.

Fuglie, K. O., and Toole, A. A. (2014). The evolving institutional structure of public and private agricultural research. *American Journal Of Agricultural Economics*, 96 (3), 862-883. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aat107

Gliessman, S. R. (2007). *Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems*. 2nd Edition CRC Press. Boca Raton.

Hatt S. et al., (2016). Towards sustainable food systems: the concept of agroecology and how it questions current research practices. A review. *Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment*. 20(S1), 215-224.

UCS (2016). *Scientists Call for Public Investment in Agroecological Research* http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/solutions/advance-sustainable-agriculture/scientists-call-public-investment-agroecology#.
WHIQWmVvgiA

Valenzuela, H. (2016). Agroecology: A Global Paradigm to Challenge Mainstream Industrial Agriculture. *Horticulturae*, 2(1), 2.
Doi:10.3390/horticulturae2010002

Vanloqueren, G., and Baret, P. V. (2009). How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. *Research Policy*, 38(6), 971-983.

Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., and David, C. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*, 29(4), 503-515. Doi: 10.1051/agro/2009004

**PHOTO CREDITS**

Flickr: 1 - Lindsay Eyink; 4 - In Good Nature; 8 - Chromatropic; 10 - Murt Phillips; 12 - Katie1653; 15 - R. Schnaible; 17 - Matthew Stevens; 19 - Peter Westendorp; 22 - Glyn Lowe; 24 - Vicky Brock; 25 - Justin Rushde; 27 - Erik De Castro; 28 - Kay Ledbetter