Nazimi Açıkgöz graduated from Ankara University in 1964 and earned his Ph D. degree at Munich Technical University in 1972. He then joined Ege University and worked there until his retirement in 2009. His rice breeding studies was supported by CENTO, NATO, IAEA and TUBITAK and at the end, a rice variety “TOAG92" was registered. His studies on computer use in agriculture were on seed database management system and bioistatistics. One of his packages TARIST (Agrostatistics) is still the only Turkish software in this area. He is one of the founders of the “Seed Center” at Ege University, which has been directed between 1998-2004 by him. He is now a freelance writer and moderating a Turkish portal “gelecekteki gıdalarımız” (our future foods, https://nazimiacikgoz.wordpress.com) whichs papers are republished in numbers of journals and portals. He writes also blogs in Turkish newspapers Milliyet (http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/gidakrizivebilim) and Radikal (http://blog.radikal.com.tr/Sayfa/dunyada-tohumculuk-nasil-destekleniyor-21195) (nazimi.acikgoz@gmail.com)
Intellectual property rights can be classified as copyrights and industrial property rights. Copyrights cover intellectual and artistic works. Industrial property rights, on the other hand, cover patents, trademarks, brands, and designs. At a high level, while living things that exist in nature cannot be patented, living things that have been modified or created by human hands can. For example, while genetically modified microorganisms, plants, and animals can be patented, living things such as humans or human embryos cannot.
A patent is a document that gives the owner of an invention exclusive rights for a certain time. Patents are for new and industrially applicable inventions. Patent application is made by submitting the necessary documents to the relevant institution.
First Patent on Living Things
The first patented living thing in the world was a type of bacteria in the USA in 1980. This genetically modified bacterium to clean up oil pollution provided its owner with special rights for a certain period and paved the way for living things to be patented.
Breeders’ rights regarding new plant varieties
Patenting in plants is a system developed by plant breeders to protect new genotypes, that is, new varieties. With this process, defined as registration, all rights arising from the production, sale, and commercial use of the new variety are allocated to the breeder person, organization, or company under the name of intellectual property right, breeder’s right, or royalty.
When were breeders’ rights established?
As early as the 19th century, the idea that the breeder should have a right to improve the plants started to be put forward. However, during that time, no income was expected from the varieties developed by universities and public research institutions in the USA as universities and research institutions engaged in plant breeding were considered to be performing public duties. When the private sector got involved in plant breeding and started to develop new varieties around 1930x the “PLANT PATENT LAW” was enacted for flowers such as chrysanthemums propagated by cuttings (not seeds!). In 1952, the “PLANT VARIETIES PROTECTION LAW” was enacted for seed plant varieties. The issue here is the registration of a new genotype developed in the name of its breeder. While a series of registration-related conditions were met, the new variety provided a series of advantages to its breeder. For example, that variety cannot be marketed as seed or production material by someone else. These rights are known as “breeder’s rights” (royalty).
Improving technologies will bring new concepts to daily life, language, and naturally, law. The successes achieved first in seed technology and then in agricultural biotechnology played a key role in feeding the rapidly increasing population. The most striking figure is that the corn yield, 200 kg/da in the 1920s, reached 800 kg/da in the 2020s. The successful use of genetics by plant breeders played a major role here.
Patent Period in Biotechnology
With the introduction of biotechnology in the 1990s, genes not previously found in the plant’s environment came into our lives by transferring them from other species (GMO = Genetically modified organisms). While the world transgenic (GMO) crop cultivation area will reach 190 million hectares in the 2020s (15% of the total cultivation area), 36% of the commercial seed market belongs to this category. Tens of thousands of agricultural biotechnology patents have been obtained for transgenic varieties.
Thus, unauthorized cultivation of a variety developed abroad can be prevented, in other words, breeder rights payments can be guaranteed. On the other hand, local plant breeders will be able to benefit individually (those who breed in official research institutions!) and institutionally, both at home and abroad, from the added value provided by the new variety they have developed. Thanks to these practices, breeders obtain resources for the breeding of new varieties with the income of the varieties they developed, and breeders can thus obtain new varieties that are more resistant to diseases, higher quality, safer, and more productive. With the protection system of plant varieties, the development of these features is encouraged and the rights of breeders who develop varieties are also protected by this system.
Patent infringement
Breeding rights infringements began in the USA, where rights were first enacted. THE PLANT PATENT LAW, which came into force in 1930, was mainly aimed at practices related to vegetatively propagated cut flowers such as chrysanthemums, gerberas, carnations, and roses. Following the implementation of all regulations regarding “breeders’ rights”, international organizations became members and thus it was adopted that the production and trade of registered varieties, which were protected, could not be carried out without royalty agreements. However, violation of law, common to every sector, is also encountered in agricultural production and exports.
Naturally, cases such as abuse and violation of patent rights are monitored by a series of organizations established at the international level, as well as by national regulations. The following organizations stand out among these organizations: U P O V (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties), WIPO (World Intellectual Property Rights Organization), TRIPS (Commercial Intellectual Property Rights Organization), CPVO (EU Community Plant Varieties Office) and PVPO (Plant Varieties Protection Office).
In the face of increasing population, adversely changing climate, shrinking agricultural lands, inputs such as energy, fertilizer and pestisite that push the limits, people are starting to worry about the future. In addition, the world food crisis is being expressed due to regional wars, and calls for “urgent measures” are being made to administrators and politicians, especially by non-governmental organizations[1].
How can we interpret the fact that the number of countries under the global hunger line increased from 26 in 2000, 79 in 2010, to 95 in 2023? It shows that the number of people facing hunger increased from 613 million in 2019 to approximately 735 million in 2023. The extreme poverty experienced in the world and the food riots that broke out in 30 countries in 2008 reveal the seriousness of the situation. If we add expectations such as more daily calorie requirements to these constraints, humanity is forced to seize the smallest opportunity for its own future. Moreover, it is expected that the world population will reach 11.2 billion by 2100. So how will we feed the future population with current production possibilities?
What is the status of agricultural production areas in the world? First, it is worth repeating this fact: While one hectare fed 2 people in the 1950s, 4 people in the 1999s, it must feed 5 people in the 2025s. In addition, it is a fact that changes such as heat waves, floods, storms and melting glaciers will greatly reduce agricultural production areas.
What options stand out for the world to produce more food in the future?
Production methods
We can increase the existing agricultural potential with biotechnology, smart agricultural technological equipment and new production methods. In this context, stubble cultivation, precision agriculture, image perception and phytobiological information, remote sensing with satellite and aerial vehicles, fertilizer application techniques and control, plant protection detection and drug application techniques, greenhouse information technology applications, precision animal production and information technologies in fish farms and Developments in agriculture in space are expected. Some of these possibilities have already yielded results. For example, NASA grew potatoes, the first agricultural product, in space, while China grew vegetables in space.
Technological Support
In addition, farm and product management systems, information technologies in water management and control, storage and processing of food and raw materials, quality, supply, waste problems in the agricultural production and marketing chain, internet use, remote service and maintenance, E-support, blockchain[2] and other information technologies. An increase in agricultural production can be predicted by taking advantage of the developments in the field. Many of these options are already in play. For example, blockchain[3] application has started to be used in many country’s agriculture to prevent waste in agricultural products.
Production Environments
At this stage, we first come across agronomic approaches to the sustainability of agricultural production: For example, stubble planting, second crop (in China, even four rice crops can be obtained per year), double cropping, soilless agriculture, floating fields on lakes, vertical agriculture, roof or warehouse-basement agriculture in the city. China’s transformation of the Taklamakan desert into electric solar fields, the construction of large dams, and the expansion of agricultural areas are pleasing developments for humanity. The issue of farmed fisheries is very promising. For example, biofloc technology has not yet been fully implemented in fish nutrition.
Genetic Support
The hybrid technique, which provides increased yield in allogams crops by utilizing classical plant breeding, was applied to a self-pollinated crop, paddy, in China, and this country avoided being a rice importer by planting hybrid paddy in 56% of its paddy cultivation areas. Applying the same method to wheat can increase world wheat production. It is pleasing that the development of varieties resistant to drought, heat, diseases and pests has already begun, using genetic engineering and biotechnology. Particularly in methods such as “CRISPR-Cas9”, silencing the targeted gene with the help of temporary DNA cutting enzymes applied during the process, increasing or decreasing its effect, and subjecting it to micro-mutation has begun to obtain new genotypes in a short time[4].
We cannot say that we have yet put the theoretical yield potential of plants into practice. For example, even half of the 2.2 tons/da theoric yield of wheat and rice has not been reached yet.
Strategic and managerial breakthroughs
The food crisis that occurred after French winegrowers shifted their vineyard facilities to the United Kingdom (creating new areas for production) and Sri Lanka started organic farming throughout the country is a good example of this.
States and umbrella organizations should plan and implement research and development to develop new technologies and techniques to ensure food safety without wasting time. First of all, importance should be given to plant and animal breeding.
A good example is that the International Maize and Wheat Research Institute (CIMMYT), together with 13 countries, has registered 160 corn varieties tolerant to drought conditions within the framework of developing new varieties that will adapt to changing climatic conditions in the face of global warming. In this regard, the unification of infrastructure and personnel opportunities should be the priority of world umbrella organizations related to agriculture.
The role of animal production in global warming is known due to its contribution to methane. As a solution to both this problem and tomorrow’s increasing protein deficit, developments in plant-based artificial meat and fish technologies are promising in this context. These practices, such as milk, cheese, etc., will relieve animal husbandry and fishing, which come to the fore in terms of land and water use and are frequently suggested in climate change. By contributing to its production, we can think that we will not go hungry in the future.
Human life continues with agricultural production. Agriculture has to continue its duty regardless of the disease-war periods and the changing climate. At this stage, humankind must continue to feed the increasing population by directing itself, as in the GREEN REVOLUTION. Of course, by evaluating production possibilities and opportunities.
It is a fact that developments in plant and animal production are achieved through discoveries, inventions, and innovations. A great project for the next fifty years has been prepared with the World Bank, FAO, UNEP, WHO, UNDP, IFAD, and UNESCO for the joint planning and execution of all these breakthroughs. In this project[1] (https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/8590), which determines what agricultural research strategies should be, strategies that will guide world agricultural production have been put forward.
Developing countries need to hurry on these issues. However, the EU has already determined its targets in this regard. So much so that within the framework of the nutritional habits that plant foods are expected to come to the fore in the 2030s, “variety development” researches on legumes in the EU were included in the first Framework Projects in order to feed northern European countries like the Mediterranean.
The EU’s strategies in this context focused on research that would increase the nutritional value of food and feed, as well as sustainable production, and productivity improvement, by utilizing genomics and biotechnology of the main products. In short, the EU’s approach to research for the 2025s focuses on “investing in the gene”.
A gene is the part of the chromosome that governs the length-shortness of any character in living things, for example, plant height. It can be transferred from the individual it is found to other varieties by classical breeding or biotechnological methods.
The attractive side of the investment draws attention to the data of the International Agricultural Research Organization (CGIAR). Despite the expenditure of 70, 28, and 15 million dollars in wheat, paddy, and corn breeding, a gain of 2,500, 10,800, and 660 million dollars was achieved, respectively. In fact, how the investment returns made in plant breeding are reflected in the GREEN REVOLUTION can be easily understood from the Chart.
Agriculture Needs New Genes
The life span of a new variety is generally 5-10 years. New genotypes are required to keep pace with changing ecological developments. New varieties resistant to emerging diseases, pests, and climatic conditions must be constantly bred. We must develop different varieties for new consumption conditions such as organic agriculture, frozen food, dried food, pastry, and canned food, which have recently entered our lives. The production of vitamins such as A[2], C, and E, amino acids such as arginine, methionine, and lysine, antioxidants such as carotene, lycopene, and micro-nutrients such as calcium, zinc, and iron, which are needed by using the plant as a factory, have begun to be supplied from plants industrially. Again, a number of new genes are needed to achieve these goals.
Gene Trading
Each country’s seed industry cannot develop the genes it needs within its own body. In this case, it can be resorted to provide the necessary gene on a state basis, if necessary. Pakistan’s purchase of a gene and making it available to all national seed organizations free of charge (Cry3 gene); The first example that comes to mind is that Brazil ordered a variety from an international company to be used only by seed companies in its country.
Let’s take a look at what genes an Israeli genomics firm has developed for its commercial partner international seed companies[3]:
Wheat midway material to Bayer, which increases wheat yield, is tolerant to heat-cold and can benefit more from nitrogen;
One of the plant breeders who have difficulties in gene supply in Turkey is the author of these lines. In the 1970s, a suitable paddy variety breeding project was initiated in the Aegean Region to be planted as a second crop after barley-wheat. Unfortunately, he was able to reach the needed early gene source in five years[4].
An Opportunity for Developing Countries
Right at this stage, developing countries have two opportunities to reach gene supply. First, many Molecular Biology and Genetics programs have been recently established in universities. Second, rapid advances in “gene-editing-CRISPR” methods, give the opportunity to develop new varieties within four years.
Let’s find a solution for universities and public and private sectors to work under one roof in providing thousands of gene materials needed by plant breeders.
Nazimi Açıkgöz
[1] The author of these lines was also among the preparers of Chapter 6 of the aforementioned report.
[2]Transgenic GOLDEN RICE enriched with Vitamin A has finally been registered and commercialized.
After the Second World War, regional famines began to occur. Believing that increasing agricultural performance can be the solution to the problem, individuals and organizations have rolled up their sleeves to develop new varieties that are resistant to diseases and pests and are highly productive, as this can be overcome with innovations in agriculture. Irrigation, spraying, and fertilization techniques were developed. Improvements were made in the mechanization of sowing-planting, harvesting-threshing works. The combination of all these activities was a revolution for agriculture. Yield and therefore agricultural production increased, and agricultural production, which could not feed three billion people in the 1960s, became enough to feed six billion in the 2000s. That’s what happened thanks to the GREEN REVOLUTION.
Even during the second world war, Mexico began to seek to convert dry farmland in the northwest of the country to irrigated agriculture to solve the problem of not self-sufficient food production. A consortium including the United Nations (FAO), Rockefeller, and Ford Foundations was formed. And in 1943, a research institute was established, which would later become the “International Corn and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)”. Here, some new agronomic options have been started to be explored, as well as the development of short, high-yielding cultivars that are resistant to diseases and pests and suitable for fertilizer use.
During the green revolution period of 1950-1980, improvement studies in wheat, rice, and maize continued in many other plants. While the plant height was shortened by hybridization methods in wheat and paddy, hybrid technology was used in maize.
A Japanese dwarf wheat variety (Norin10) was used as a genitor for shortening plant height in wheat. With those short varieties that were developed, the yield increased and the wheat importer Mexico became an exporter. While the “Mexican wheat” brought to Turkey in the 1960s could not show sufficient resistance to the disease species and breeds of Anatolian ecology, it also fell behind in consumer preferences and could not find much cultivation area in our country.
Thanks to the studies on shortening the length of wheat applied in India and Pakistan in the following years, these countries were able to enter the group of countries that are self-sufficient in wheat.
At this stage, Norman Borlaug, prominent in Mexican wheat breeding, was brought to the management of the International Corn and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico between 1964-1979. Borlaug, who argued that the hunger problem in the world would be eliminated with biotechnology, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contributions to the Green Revolution, the leading actor in food production in Asia and Latin America.
The short IR8 rice variety was developed from hybrids of an Indonesian variety called “Peta” and a Chinese variety called “Dee-geo-woo-gen”. This variety has made the Philippines, where it was developed, and many other neighboring countries an exporter while being an importer of rice.
In the 1960s, another development in crop production was in the hybrid-hybrid breeding of alien plants such as maize and sunflower. Although discovered in the 1920s, this invention, which became widespread in the 1960s, is based on the high performance observed in the offspring of different parents (F1- first generations). The high productivity of two genotypes determined from thousands of genotypes has been put into practice and today the yield per decare of corn has exceeded 1000 kg.
The aforementioned hybrid event has also been tried on self-pollinated plants and has achieved great success in rice today. So much so that thanks to the new varieties developed with the help of this technique, rice importer China has become an exporter. The cultivation area of the hybrid varieties in question covers 56% of the total cultivation area today.
An International Agricultural Research Advisory Group (CGIAR) was established with FAO and other top umbrella organizations under the leadership of the World Bank to ensure that all countries of the world benefit from the green revolution and that the results of the revolution are sustainable. This organization created 18 subject-oriented research institutes. One of them is the “International Center for Agricultural Research in Arid Areas” (ICARDA), which was established in Syria in 1977 and is currently working in Lebanon.
Let’s take a look at some of the other striking results captured by the green revolution:
• Compared to pre-revolution, today’s people can consume 25% more calories;
• Between 1950 and 1984 alone, world grain production increased by approximately 160%;
• Striking reductions in child mortality rates have been achieved in 37 countries.
Beyond these positive effects and contributions, the Green Revolution has also been the target of some criticism:
• Increasing prosperity, predominantly in developing countries, has triggered increases in birth rates;
• Quality factors such as protein, mineral, and vitamin were neglected in the varieties bred during the Revolution;
• During the revolution, Africa was virtually ignored.
It is a fact that the foods consumed throughout human evolution have changed depending on the ecology of the living environment. However, in today’s globalizing world, standardized food consumption is changing due to “consumer preferences”.
The cause of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is the change in the tilt of the earth’s orbit around the sun and its axis. These pre-industrial climatic changes caused people to migrate, the extinction of many living species, and sometimes almost complete changes in food types and varieties.
We can attribute the changing trends in today’s food consumption to the desire for a healthier life and well-being. The increase in the number of calories consumed in recent years confirms this.
It is predicted that the amount of food produced today should be increased by 50-70% in the 2050s due to population growth, global warming, and increasing welfare levels. But we should expect not the same rate of change in the main nutrients we will consume in the future.
At this point, the necessity for agricultural strategists to know which agricultural production is expected to be consumed in what quantity in the future comes to the fore. This question finds answers in the reports of many international organizations such as FAO, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the World Food Program (WFP), the World Resources Institute (WRI), and CGIAR.
The average annual consumption per capita of main products in 2005, 2006, and 2007 and the expected values in 2050 are discussed in the TABLE and the ratio of the differences to the observed values (%) has been calculated and the data in the last column has been reached. Based on these figures, it can be easily understood which products will be consumed more. Based on these data, we may prioritize research, investment, and production of certain products in the future.
Based on these data, let’s look for an answer to the question of what kind of reorientation we may need to make in our country’s agriculture.
• Let’s first take a look at the expected increase in the annual kilocalorie value per capita: Since there will be an increase in both plant and animal food consumption to meet this energy, which is expected to increase from 2772 to 3070, there will be an 11% increase in these products to meet the daily calorie requirement. We have to provide. We also need to calculate the population growth rate.
• “1%”, which seems as if there will be no change in grain consumption, is actually a bit misleading. Because these days, when we watch the rapid transition from wheat to rice in a country with a high population like China, it is necessary to make a separate evaluation of the grains themselves. As a matter of fact, he mentioned in detail in this link that the annual per capita rice consumption has doubled in the last 30 years in Turkey due to urbanization.
• Do not expect sugar beet producers to be happy when the annual sugar consumption per capita is expected to increase from 22 kg to 25 kg within the specified period. Because sugar cane will come to the fore as a source of sugar. In fact, sugar beet will be the only cultivated plant whose cultivation area will be narrowed.
• One kg increase in legume consumption actually means a 15% increase in this group of plants. In the EU 7th Framework research projects, priority has been given to leguminous plants in science-based bioeconomic projects. The principle of this approach is to spread this product, which is the main food of the Mediterranean diet, especially to northern Europe, to reduce health expenses while protecting society in terms of healthy nutrition. It would be beneficial for Turkey, which is no longer self-sufficient in products such as lentils and chickpeas, whose cultivation areas have narrowed due to the expansion of our irrigated lands, to make a move in legume production and to renew its research and support programs.
• The highest increase expectation in the table is observed in vegetable oils. For this category of which we are an importer, Turkey must develop special strategies.
• Meat and milk are the main food sources whose consumption is expected to increase. We can say that our country, where farm fishery is increasing rapidly, has fulfilled what is necessary without realizing it. It would be beneficial to draw the attention of Turkish food industrialists to the plant-based meat issue, which is rapidly becoming available in Western countries [1].
According to the expected increases in these food categories, we come across the need for each country to reorient the necessary investments and research. Well, to what extent do we know these details from politicians to bureaucrats, from scientists to the private sector of investors? In the planning of the future, not the individuals and units already mentioned, but “think tanks” have taken on a task.
Despite the expected shrinkage, all countries are in a race for bioeconomic research that will provide more yield per unit area to produce more. On the other hand, each country has to develop very different systems-strategies for plant breeding for new varieties[2] that can adapt to the conditions that will occur with global warming. As a matter of fact, BRIC countries have almost restructured their agricultural research systems. BRAZIL, as the first developing country to realize the importance of seed breeding – Ministry of Agriculture, Seed Sector and Universities Agricultural Research Council gathered under the name “EMBRAPA”. While this organization has enabled Brazil to become the world market leader in many products, it has not been limited to “variety development” alone. The varieties developed have created such an opportunity for agronomic opportunities that they have provided the producer with the opportunity to buy two soybeans in one year and “wheat + soybean” in one year, that is, two crops per year from the same land[3].
ICAR (Indian Agricultural Research Council) 59 institutes, 69 Agricultural Universities, and 636 stations and biotech variety candidates in tens of cultivated plants meet the new variety requirement of the country for the future.
As a country, we need to establish the national “Agricultural Research Council” that will gather the public, private sector, and universities under one roof.
Considering the course of deviations in temperatures from annual averages in Germany between 1881-2021, the importance and seriousness of the work are better understood (Graph).
All the world organizations have already grasped the importance of this climate change, and they have rolled up their sleeves to take urgent measures regarding the adverse effects of the event on food and agriculture. FAO, the European Commission (EC), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and the World Food Program (WFP) have recently signed a framework cooperation agreement to meet the food requirement. The aim is to develop effective, coordinated, and sustainable new strategies for food safety and security.
There are many other compelling reasons, especially climate change. First of all, the expectation is that the population will reach 9.5 billion in 2050. Based on the cultivation area data, while a production area of 4.3 hectares per capita decreased in 1960, it is a known fact that this figure dropped to 3 in 1980 and to 1.8 hectares in 2020. Let’s try to estimate the number of people fed by one hectare of agricultural land: In 1960, one hectare fed 0.7 people, in 1980 1.5 people, in 2000 2.7 people. In 2020, one hectare should feed 4.2 people. From this point of view, the inevitability of buying more products per unit area emerges in the coming years.
Another factor that comes with climate change and will negatively affect agriculture is the diseases and pests that may shift to the north with increasing temperatures. One cannot even imagine its possible effects. In the face of the increasingly negative effects of these changes, the following question comes to mind: Does Climate Change Create Food Crises?
At this stage, let’s first try to answer the question of whether we can make agricultural production sustainable.
-Some countries are changing their production models. Could it be an example that Saudi Arabia ended wheat farming in 2016 for water-saving purposes?
-Is it possible to create new areas for some productions, such as the French vineyard growers shifting their vineyard facilities to the UK?
– How effective can production increases be through new practices such as stubble planting, second crop (even four crops per year in paddy can be obtained in China), soilless farming, vertical farming, and permaculture?
-Plant and animal breeding are reliable resources to ensure tomorrow’s foodstuffs in the face of climate change. The fact that drought-resistant corn varieties have already been registered and delivered to the producer, mainly by genetic engineering and biotechnology, is proof of this. So, can these and similar applications be enough?
-The hybrid technique, which provides an increase in yield in foreign pollinated products, was applied to a self-pollinated rice paddy in China and this country got rid of being a rice importer by planting hybrid paddy in 56% of the paddy cultivation areas. So, is there a chance to increase wheat production by developing hybrid wheat varieties?
In methods such as “CRISPR-Cas9”, new genotypes are created by silencing the targeted gene with the help of temporary DNA-cutting enzymes, increasing or decreasing its effect, and subjecting it to micro-mutation, without any external gene transfer, unlike GMOs. With these new breeding techniques, plants and animals have been developed in many countries. Can’t such biotechnological innovations be brought into the bioeconomy of other countries, including the EU and Turkey?
A great change in agricultural production can be achieved by reducing society’s meat consumption. In this regard, developments in plant-based artificial meat and fish technologies are promising. Plant-based meat, milk, cheese, etc., which is prominent in the use of land and water, and which is frequently put forward in climate change, will relieve livestock and fisheries. Can not the promotion of production and consumption be generalized?
– By halving crop losses, agricultural production will be able to increase by 20% in the 2050s.
Even if all these questions are answered positively, it is a fact that the climate crisis, whose degree cannot be fixed, will be the biggest threat to food security.
There have been some who have based the Syrian crisis almost entirely on the negative effects of global warming. Some argue that the drought in the country is due to unsustainable water management. Critical issues in water use, such as the lack of monitoring of groundwater, and the transition to plants with high water consumption (cotton farming with high export potential!), were ignored by the authorities. Interestingly, some countries with water use plans and projects have already taken the necessary precautions. As a matter of fact, in 2013, Saudi Arabia announced that since 2016, the country has decided to ban wheat farming in order to save water.
Unfortunately, we follow an example in another developing country where wrong agricultural policies can lead the country to crisis: Sri Lanka. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled the country and sent his resignation after the people, who were uprising due to the economic crisis, stormed his palace. In May 2022, Sri Lanka went bankrupt due to its inability to repay its loans to international creditors, and IMF representatives began negotiations for a $3 billion bailout. So how did the country come to this situation?
At the end of 2019, tax cuts reduced government revenues, in 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic devastated the tourism industry, and skyrocketing inflation fueled the fire even more. In the spring of 2021, President Rajapaksa took a poorly understood decision, despite warnings from a group of scientists and agronomists: He banned the import of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides almost overnight, forcing Sri Lanka’s millions of farmers to engage in organic farming. NGOs that advocate the spread of organic agriculture and are actively supported by many international groups have a great influence on this decision. However, this fertilizer- and pesticide-free organic farming causes crop losses exceeding 50%, especially in grains such as wheat and paddy (Graphic!).
Artificial fertilizers used in plant production meet their nutritional needs such as phosphorus and potash. The negative impact of their excessive use on the environment is undeniable. However, their role in increasing productivity cannot be ignored. For this reason, their deficiency means a loss of productivity of around 30-40% for the producer–farmer, both in subsistence and export-oriented production. Deactivating the agricultural chemicals brought by organic agriculture may not cause problems in developed countries. However, in developing countries, it is inevitable that the reforms to be made in this context should be evaluated very well in terms of economic, political, and social aspects. As a matter of fact, many actions have been identified in the EU to make the Agriculture sector more sustainable[1]: Elimination of CO2 emissions, improvement of energy efficiency, 50% reduction in the use of chemical pesticides by 2030, reduction of at least 20% of the use of fertilizers by 2030, organic 25% increase in agricultural areas and a certain increase in organic aquaculture, etc[2].
While a Romanian journalist from the EU (Carmen Avram) described the situation as a “predictable disaster” in her column, he used the headline “Herald of the Green Deal disaster[3]: Bankruptcy caused by organic agriculture, today in Sri Lanka, tomorrow all over Europe”. The author continues, “Given that Romania uses the least amount of fertilizers and pesticides among the EU countries, the European Commission is asking us to reduce them by 50% by 2030. This means the deactivation of four agricultural inputs that ensure the sustainability of production. This will have a devastating effect on our productivity and efficiency, putting thousands of farmers at risk of bankruptcy. Well, when we try to fill the product gap that our farmers cannot provide with imports, logistics etc. Who can guarantee that we will not cause greater damage to the environment with these problems?”
It is predicted that the amount of food produced today should be increased by 50-70% in the 2050s due to reasons such as population growth, global warming, and increasing welfare levels. In addition, some changes seem inevitable in terms of the content of the main nutrients we will consume. Problems such as malnutrition, malnutrition, micronutrient deficiency, and overweight-obesity affect almost all humanity. This situation, which we will define as malnutrition, has an unpredictable economic and social cost. According to the latest estimates by FAO, 12.5 percent of the world’s population (868 million people) is malnourished[1]. Again, 26 percent of the world’s children have growth retardation, and 2 billion people suffer from one or more micronutrient deficiencies. On the other hand, 1.4 billion people are overweight, of which 500 million are obese. All these nutritional disorders, in more than one form, can be encountered in almost every country (Table).
Child Growth Retardation %
Anemia (Fe Deficit) %
Vitamin A Deficit %
Iodine Deficit %
Obesity %
World
21
48
30
30
12
Germany
1
8
0
27
21
India
48
74
62
31
2
Türkiye
12
333
12
61
29
Beyond the social cost of malnutrition, there is a financial cost of US$3.5 trillion (US$500 per person), which is 5% of the annual world GDP, with decreases in productivity, productivity, and treatment expenditures. Although the full breakdown of the amount in question has not been made, the cost of obesity to the world, together with the risk factors, was estimated at 1.4 trillion US$ in 2010.
The situation is alarming for our country as well. As can be seen from Table 1, growth retardation was observed in 12% of our children, anemia in 33%, vitamin A deficiency in 12%, and iodine deficiency in 61% of our children. In addition, 29% of our adults are obese. It is a fact that we are quite different from the world average, Germany and India figures listed in the chart in terms of iodine deficiency and obesity.
In cases such as zinc, iron, iodine, and vitamin deficiencies, the possibility of preventing some diseases by enriching them in foods was questioned by the World Health Organization, and Food, and Agriculture organizations, and a task was given to CGIAR (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research). Indeed, zinc, iodine, iron, and vitamin A enrichment projects have been initiated, in which deficiencies are observed with genetic interventions (plant breeding!) in widely consumed products such as wheat, corn, and rice. Thus, without the need for an industrial process and labor, that is, with the direct use of natural medicines, the cost will be zero.
With the introduction of this intermediate biotechnology, it would be appropriate to mention a protease inhibitor aprotinin, which is obtained from transgenic corn and can be taken orally against the HIV virus that causes AIDS, and a protease inhibitor used to control bleeding, which is also found in the same way.
With the “HarvestPlus Challenge” project initiated in the 2000s, CGIAR[2] carried out gene transfer studies that will provide the deficiency of the vitamin or mineral to the plants by using classical breeding methods, and developed many new varieties listed below, suitable for the purpose, and delivered them to the world farmer and therefore to the consumer. These varieties are given below. It is expected that the project continues and many more new health-related varieties are expected to come.
77 types of beans with increased iron content;
11 types of gin millet with increased iron content;
18 kinds of bananas with increased vitamin A;
69 kinds of vitamin A enriched corn;
11 types of zinc-enriched corn;
16 types of zinc-enriched rice;
11 zinc enriched wheat.
In addition, the transgenic rice developed by using biotechnology and enriched with vitamin A was registered in 2021 and offered for the use of Filipino farmers. Gene-edited tomatoes whit vitamin D is underway with a sustainable solution to these global health issues[3].
The need to increase agricultural production in the near future is undeniable. Science has responded instantly to rapid changes in environmental conditions by developing the drought-resistant genotypes for this purpose.
With climate change, Central Europe is not only getting drier and hotter, but new genotypes (variants) of heat-loving diseases and pests are also reaching further north, to regions where they weren’t found before. So how can plant breeders deal with them? It takes many years to develop new, resistant varieties through classical plant breeding. Therefore, it seems inevitable that new strategies and new technologies will be introduced to develop suitable genotypes.
In recent years, with the expectation of quality life, human beings have turned to organic foods with 30-40% less product per unit area. The main reason why the yield per unit area in organic agriculture is low compared to conventional agriculture is that genotypes and varieties that will provide maximum yield in a limited nutrient environment have not been developed yet (Figure). The main reason why the yield per unit area in organic agriculture is low compared to conventional agriculture is that genotypes and varieties that will provide maximum yield in a limited nutrient environment have not been developed yet. Unless the “organic agriculture with organic seeds” condition, which is also included in the organic agriculture directives, is not met, the organic-classical yield gap does not seems to close[1].
The philosophy adopted while laying the foundations of organic agriculture was based on the principles that no one would say no to, such as protecting future generations, protecting soil and water, saving energy, not leaving chemical fertilizers and pesticides and protecting those working in agriculture. While the standards were being determined, non-GMO production, which was one of the controversial issues of that period, was added to the regulations. When we look at the historical course of the use of GMO varieties resistant to corn stalk worm, which started in the USA in 1996, we see that the pesticide, which was planted 200 g per hectare in 1996, fell into a state of not being used at all in 2010. The use of GMO varieties has increased to over 90% in the 2020s. This shows that when the GMO variety is planted, the use of pesticides is reset and at the same time, the agronomic performance is high. This phenomenon brings to mind the question of whether “organic farming of GMO corn” can be done, which eliminates the use of chemical pesticides and compensates for the yield loss in organic farming. While the gene that provides resistance to that rootworm comes from a bacterium such as Bacillus thuringiensis, which has been approved for use as a fertilizer in organic agriculture!
Both organic agriculture and agricultural biotechnology visionaries around the world have sought solutions to future food problems, arguing that some old and outdated guidelines should be renewed. For example, Tijeniro et al[2]. say “Genetically Modified Organisms Can Be Organic” and they state that there is no need to worry about economic, environmental, nutrition and food safety of GMOs in organic agriculture. Apart from this, it should be presented science-based information to consumers, explaining how GMO technology contributes positively to organic purposes and emphasize the added value of the use of GMOs in organic agriculture.
In this context, Bernard[3] touched on the following issues in his article titled “Is it possible with organic GMOs? Here are the scientific facts behind it’s a good idea”: the current policy that GMOs cannot be included in organic food production is outdated. Important researchers have shown the safety of GMOs in terms of health and environment. The legislation allowing the use of GMOs in organic agriculture and the policy on this issue should be changed. It would be appropriate to make seed production at the same standards in GMO and organic agriculture. Genetically modified organisms provide a sustainable solution to conventional farming by increasing crop yields and reducing the amount of pesticides and herbicides used. Therefore, GMOs should be allowed to fall under the definition of organic.
Let’s take a look at some facts:
• Drought-resistant transgenic maize (with GMO) has been registered. Does the farmer have a choice to produce organic corn in the arid region?
• The environmental benefits associated with GMO adoption are complemented by lowering the price of agricultural products. A few examples support the view that GM technologies reduce price;
• There are nearly 4000 varieties developed with mutations in the world. They are used in organic farming. However, cultivars developed by gene-editing-method such as CRISPR are not allowed in organic, purely because biotechnology is in effect as a method. Here, while the mutant varieties developed by irradiation method in laboratories are approved, the reason for saying no to varieties developed by biotechnological methods can be explained scientifically.
As a result, we have to embrace new technologies for the food security of tomorrow. In the first stage, it is necessary to enlighten society on this issue, and especially to inform the decision-making bodies.
No epidemic in the world has been as impactful in health, economic and social terms as Corona-19. Following the emergence of the virus, its isolation and gene mapping were achieved within a few weeks, thanks to genetic engineering and new molecular biological techniques. Developed with these unimaginable advances in science, the PCR test method has enabled Covid patients to be identified quickly. The need to develop a vaccine against the rapidly spreading disease has put great pressure on the society. Again, new molecular biological techniques stood out as the most promising method in this regard. But there was a timing problem here. Environmental impact assessments, which were part of this type of research would have taken a long time, posing a major problem. To address this problem, EU officials decided to remove environmental impact assessment tests as a requirement for drug development in July 2020 and to continue research by decommissioning environmental impact assessment tests.
As a result, four Covid 19 vaccines were developed with genetic modification towards the end of 2020 and put to worldwide application[1]. In fact, in the last 20 years, 297 new drugs were registered with gene engineering method in Germany[2]. Since its first registration in 1998 with the genetically modification, 22 insulin drugs have been registered. Due to the low cost of the system, the pharmaceutical industry has started to develop medicine for a variety of diseases from leukemia to meningitis, hepatitis B to ebola in addition to vitamins B2, B12, C with this method. In fact, the genetic modification was applied to animals to obtain some drugs, and their products were used as medicinal drugs: (1) the active ingredient of the thrombosis drug, the transgenic (genetically modified goat) to obtain “arthrin” and (2) the transgenic rabbit for the rare hereditary angioedema disease. Food preservatives and colorants such as ascorbic acid and riboflavin obtained from genetically modified microorganisms in many other categories have also been put on the market.
Gene transfer can be carried out not only in microorganisms but also in plants and animals. In 2003, the United Nations put into effect the Convention on Biological Diversity and Cartagena Biosafety Protocol to solve the problems caused by these new GMO products and transgenic animals in terms of human, animal and environmental health.
The implementation of this protocol differs by country. A number of countries are growing transgenic crops like corn, cotton, soybean and rapeseed etc. the production area of which reached 190 million hectares in 2019 which makes up 13% of the world’s cultivated area. On the other hand, EU and countries with strong trade relationships, such as Turkey, prohibit transgenic crops production. It is notable that the EU imports close to US$40 billion of corn and soybean a year from GMO-growing countries. Turkey’s soybean import is around US $ 4 billion annually. It is also very interesting that corn farmers of the two EU countries, Spain and Portugal, can benefit from the blessings of transgenics.
Growing transgenic varieties has agro-economic gains of approximately 30%. But developing new transgenic varieties costs hundreds of millions of US$. Therefore, such varieties are only developed and marketed by giant international seed companies. Most of the said amount is comprised of the cost of tests to assess health and environmental risks.
In recent years, a revolutionary biotechnological system has been developed that earned its inventors the Nobel Prize in chemistry. Gene editing made with the revolutionary CRISPR / Cas9 method can increase and decrease the effect of the gene by adjusting the bases in the gene with enzymes, and even silence the gene. This is actually a manmade micro mutation. It is critical to reduce the classical breeding period of 10-15 years required for the breeding of new plant variety to 4-5 years. The significance of shortening the production cycle for new varieties that are resistant to diseases-pests, climatic conditions and high performance cannot be overstated for the agricultural world.
Interestingly, many varieties have been developed outside the EU in a short time by gene editing, especially by small and medium-sized seed companies. And in this process, the registration procedures were carried out according to standard plant breeding principles, not transgenic legislation. However, the EU requires that gene regulations should be evaluated according to GMO product legislation involving health and environmental risk tests. This practice that seed companies oppose due to increased cost, would lead to EU farmers not being able to maintain their competitive advantage because they would not be able to benefit from the mentioned advantages of biotechnology.
Our hope is that the changes made in the biotechnology legislation used in the rapid development of the Covid vaccine would be applied to EU seed cultivation, which would in turn maximize our agriculture and food production potential.
It is estimated that the amount of food produced today should increase by 50-70% by 2050 to counter the effects of population increase, global warming and increasing welfare. But we should expect the same rate of change in the main nutrients we will consume in the future.
At this point, the need for agricultural strategists to know which agricultural product is expected to be consumed in what quantity in the future comes to the forefront. The reports of many international organizations such as FAO, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), World Food Program (WFP), World Resources Institute (WRI), and CGIAR can provide an answer to this question. The table below depicts the average annual consumption per capita (kg) of the main products in 2005, 2006, and 2007 and the expected values in 2050. The striking data in the last column is calculated as the ratio of the difference to the observed values (%). These figures, give us a good indication of which products will be consumed more which should influence the prioritization of research, investment, and production of certain products in the future.
Food Sources
2005-7
2050
Difference
%Difference
Cereals
158
160
2
1
Sugar
22
25
3
14
Legumes
6
7
1
15
Vegetable Oils
12
16
4
33
Meat-Fish
39
49
10
26
Dairy products
83
99
16
19
Kilo Calories
2772
3070
298
11
These results should shed some light on the agro-economic questions and prepare some countries for future food production.
Let’s first take a look at the expected increase in kilocalories per capita per year: In order to meet this energy, which is expected to increase from 2772 to 3070, there will be an increase in the consumption of both plant and animal food and therefore, an 11% increase is expected in world food production just to meet the daily calorie requirement.
The “1%”, which seems as if there will be no change in grain consumption, is actually a bit misleading. Because a country with a high population like China makes it necessary to make a separate evaluation in grains these days, when we are watching the rapid transition from wheat to rice.
Do not expect sugar beet producers to be happy when the annual sugar consumption per capita is expected to increase from 22 kg to 25 kg within the specified period. Because sugar cane will come to the forefront as a source of sugar. In fact, sugar beet will be the only cultivated plant whose cultivation area will be narrowed.
One kg increase in legume consumption actually means a 15% increase in this group of plants. In EU 7th Framework research projects, priority has been given to leguminous plants in knowledge-based bioeconomic projects. The principle in this approach was to spread this product, which is the main food of the Mediterranean diet, especially to northern Europe and to reduce health expenses while protecting the society in terms of healthy nutrition. It would be beneficial for many countries like Turkey to renew their research and support programs considering it is no longer self-sufficient in products such as lentils and chickpeas where cultivation areas have narrowed due to the expansion of irrigated lands.
The highest increase expectation in the table is observed in vegetable oils. Many countries will need to develop special strategies for this category.
Meat and milk are the main food sources whose consumption is expected to increase. In some countries farm fishery is increasing rapidly. It would also be beneficial to draw the attention of food industrialists in developing countries to the plant-based meat issue, which is rapidly emerging in Western countries[1].
For the expected increase in the mentioned categories, we come across the need for researches and redirection of the necessary investments in some countries. In this respect, we have to support politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, and the private sector of investors. In the planning of the future, new ideas are indispensable.
In the face of the expected shrinkage of agricultural land, all countries are racing for bioeconomic research that will bring more yield per unit area to produce more. As a matter of fact, one of the BRIC countries, Brazil has almost restructured its agricultural research systems. Realizing the importance of plant breeding – Ministry of Agriculture, the Seed Sector, and Universities Agricultural Research Council gathered under the name “EMBRAPA”. While this organization has enabled Brazil to become the world market leader in many products, it has not been limited to “variety development” alone. The varieties developed have created such agronomic opportunities that the producer can harvest crops “wheat + soybean” in one year, that is, two crops per year from the same land[2].
ICAR (Indian Agricultural Research Council) 59 institutes, 69 Agricultural Universities, and 636 stations meet the need for new varieties for the future of the country with biotech variety candidates in tens of cultivated plants (http://www.washingtonbanglaradio.com/content/14886714- new-paradigms-agricultural-research#ixzz2qmhyxNrv).
How will a developing country improve the new varieties, without putting thousands of plant focusted researchers working in universities into action, that is, without establishing a national “Agricultural Research Council”? New private plant breeding companies in the West are generally established by “angel investors” originating from the University. Of course, a genetic material, for example, a drougt resistance line, can not be reachable if there is no University facility around. This is where the unsolvable problem of the SEED in developing countries, which we had to import by paying royalty (breeder’s right), begins.
Nazimi Açıkgöz
Note: A summary of this article has been published in “http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/yarin-hangi-gida-ne-oranda/Blog/?BlogNo=633840”.
According to the ”14. five-year plan” China plans to increase its research and development (R&D) spending by more than 7% per year. In fact, the increase in R&D expenditures from 0.7% of the annual gross national product (GNP) in 1995 to 2.2% in 2020 reveals China’s determination for development. Agriculture has always been one of the priority areas in all development plans. While the announcement of this last five-year plan, revitalization of the rural areas and modernization of agriculture were highlighted:
According to the mentioned plan:
• The quality of agricultural products and food security will be further improved and the increase in farmers’ incomes will exceed those of urban residents;
• Agricultural modernization will be provided where conditions permit;
• In order to reduce poverty, rural revitalization will be encouraged in these regions and the income gap in rural and urban areas will be tried to be zero by 2025, regular assistance will be continued for low-income rural residents;
• The protection, development and use of gene resources will be encouraged, the implementation of scientific and technological projects involving agricultural biotechnology in plant breeding will be accelerated;
• By 2025, efforts will be made to establish 500 demonstration zones where modern agriculture is practiced and for the sustainability of agricultural development;
• The mobile internet will be promoted and the use of remote sensing satellites in agriculture will be accelerated, smart agriculture will be developed, big data systems for agriculture and rural areas will be set up, the integration of new information technology with agricultural production will be encouraged and a comprehensive agricultural meteorological monitoring network will be created to improve climate disaster prevention;
• Agricultural products storage and cold chain logistics facilities will be built to accelerate the improvement of the country’s rural logistics system, encourage e-commerce, and help direct sales of agricultural products from original production locations.
The most prominent issue here is the decision to use agricultural biotechnology in plant breeding in the country. As it is known, in recent years, genetic modification (GMO) and new breeding techniques (NBT) (CRISPR, Talen) have been involved in the development of new varieties. Under the pressure of climate change and population growth, it is inevitable to develop new varieties as soon as possible. Reducing this process, which lasted between 10-20 years, to four years with new breeding techniques, is an unmissable opportunity for China. The EU places these NBT operations in the same category as GMOs and prohibits them. Of course, there may be problems in the foreign trade of products developed by this method. Here, China has demonstrated its commitment to this issue with the relevant development plan.
While the country-oriented state policies are constantly being implemented, China supports a world-renowned e-commerce company like Ali Baba, which most of us have heard of. Parallel to it, Pinduoduo, a large company engaged in agricultural product e-commerce, bought goods from 12 million farmers in 2020 and served 788 million consumers. Let’s try to summarize the garlic example of an application of such a company that can be a solution for the price gap from field to table, which is a big problem in our country, with the table below. At the top is the practice in normal trading. A kilo of garlic sold by the producer for 1 ₺ costs the consumer 8 ₺. In the bottom line of the table, according to the e-commerce data, the producer earns 30% more money than the product he sells for 1.3 ₺, while the consumer can reach food much cheaper.
TODAY /// the purchase price from the manufacturer: 1₺/kg /// Garlic Producer-Wholesaler, 1-3 intermediaries + greengrocer, /// Product to the consumer 8₺/kg;
e-COMMERCE///Purchase price from the manufacturer in e-commerce 1.3₺/kg /// e-commerce firm warehouses + Transfer to the consumer/// Product to the consumer 1.5₺/kg
It cannot be argued how beneficial such an application is for both the producer and the consumer. Turkey on trade in agricultural products are also serves e-commerce companies. Some supermarkets are working in this parallel and even that a company has started the blockchain application.
China, which has the world’s largest agricultural economy, undertakes one fourth of global food production alone. On the other hand, in terms of money, it is the second country in the world that imports the most agricultural products. After the commercial war with the USA, China has attempted to be self-sufficient in many products. With a surface area of 9.5 million square kilometers and a population of 1.3 billion, it has become the second largest economy in the world by increasing its GNP by 10% each year in the last 50 years. However, the agricultural sector, where 33% of the working population is employed, contributes only 10% to GNP. Therefore, China aims to increase agricultural productivity and consequently food production through structural reforms, institutional innovations, intensive R&D and agricultural investments.
Every country has to increase its yield per unit area due to its increasing population, increasing annual calorie requirement per capita, shrinking planting areas and global warming. Factors such as seed, fertilizer, water and agrochemicals are critical in increasing yield in crop production. Of these, seed comes first in terms of relative impact. Indeed, the newly developed varieties marked the green revolution. That is why Brazil has ordered a weedkiller-resistant soybean variety to an international company and Pakistan has bought a gene for all national seed companies to improve their new seed varieties from an international company.
The annual value of seed trade in the world is approximately $60 billion. Within the framework of free trade practices, every country can buy and sell seeds, following country regulations and phytosanitary rules. Here, we should differentiate between variety and seed. When you sell seeds, its second and subsequent planting is of no concern to the seller. But when the variety is sold, the breeding right of the seed from the first, second and subsequent plantings is paid to the owner of the variety.
According to the latest report from an international research agency (IFPRI ) on food and agriculture, the Middle East and North African Countries have to increase their agricultural research investments to feed their citizens. The report states: “For decades, many governments in this region neglected to invest in agricultural R&D until the issue became a priority following sharp food price hikes in 2008 in the region. Since then, spending has increased in some countries. Nonetheless, only two of 11 countries -Jordan and Oman- included in the research currently invest more than 1 percent of agricultural output in agricultural research and development, as recommended by the UN”. Quality plant researchers from countries such as Lebanon, Egypt Jordan, who are expected to serve at home country, have also been transferred to the Gulf countries. Although the amount of imports and exports of seed behind Turkey has made progress on this issue.”
According to 2018 figures, Turkey exported: • Four wheat varieties to Sudan, Syria, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq and Turkmenistan • Four cotton varieties to Tajikistan, Sudan, Benin and Syria • One sunflower variety to Romania, Russia and France • Three chickpea varieties to Syria, Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus, Ukraine and Russia to Bulgaria • Three paddy (rice) varieties to Macedonia, two to Spain, three to Ukraine, two to Russia.
Turkey is at the forefront of plant breeding and seed production when compared to its neighbors. The timely implementation of seed laws played a major role in establishing this position. Also, in Turkey, in particular the adoption of the breeder’s rights and the share of private sector seed companies having completed their development should not be overlooked.
Despite all these developments, there is a gene-generator problem in Turkish variety improvement. As there is no gene selling institution in the country, universities are not adequately informed about this. It is not known whether a single gene can be registered and protected. For example, the researcher, who identifies a genotype resistant to any plant disease, can market it to a company with research facilities. Unfortunately, universities are unable to do their part in terms of plant breeding.
The common view of the seed stakeholders is a bit more progressive (SEED SECTOR POLICY DOCUMENT 2018-2022 – Tagem 2019):
• “We want to impede the entry of numerous varieties into Turkey. Because the domestic companies do not have their market share due to small number of registered varieties existing in Turkey. So, they want to import new foreign varieties from abroad in order to have their own varieties (by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for breeders’ rights (royalty))”
• The model we need is the cooperation of universities, private sector and public research institutes like western countries. Indeed, if all three units can be under one umbrella, their performance will be 5-10 times more.
Therefore, Article 28 of the Final Declaration of the Agricultural Council (3. Tarım Şurası) states: “In order to use resources more effectively in R&D and innovation, a new institutional infrastructure, including public, private sector and universities, will be established.”
Realization of this decision and establishment of an: «AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF TURKEY» will be the turning point of Turkish seed business. Nazimi Açıkgöz
At the current monitoring stage of the coronavirus, some may not grasp immediately its relationship with agriculture. When we ask “what will we eat tomorrow”, that food resources and farming come to our mind. We know that the rings in the food chain are always human focused: farming practices are carried out by human being. In case of any hitch of one of ring means, that the food chain breaks.
Now, let’s give a few examples of these ring deficiencies. In California, where fruit and vegetable farming are intense in the USA, sowing, planting, fertilizing, irrigation, pruning, spraying and harvesting are always carried on with temporary workers coming from Mexico. After the US consulate in Monterrey, Mexico, stopped the H2-A temporary worker visa process, the Agriculture Workforce Coalition wrote in its letter to Pompeo (US foreign minister): “The American people need a stable food supply to maintain healthy diets and strong immune systems, especially now during this national health crisis. The failure to take necessary action to protect our food supply will result in bare shelves in grocery store produce aisles, not from panic buying, but as the result of the federal government directly causing a shortage of critical labor.”
German strawberry and asparagus producers employing temporary migrant workers, despite their closed borders, are currently waiting the temporary workers coming from new EU member states. Germany has closed its border to temporarily agricultural workers from some countries including Bulgaria and Romania. In this case especially asparagus, strawberries and cucumbers harvest will be impacted. But more interesting: “you harvest what you have planted”. What will be the short and medium seasonal plantings in the future? Situations in Italy and Spain seem not to be very promising. State Aid, requested as grants and tax reduction to primary agricultural producers seems not to compensate farmers loses. And therefor they should also be supported for “due to not being able to reach to seasonal workers”.
In EU number of cross-border workers is 1,5 million. Let’s think alternatively, how will the jobs done without worker and how will the not jobless workers feed their families? “Many of them have jobs that are important for us all to get through the crisis,” European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said. And the EU released a list of “critical workers”. It says it must be allowed continued freedom of movement across its internal borders, despite emergency coronavirus measures including health workers, truck drivers carrying food and seasonal workers.
Turkey-Georgia border was closed after the outbreak of Corona. Thereupon, the tea producers on the Black Sea coasts immediately began to look for a solution to the workers’ problem. Because maintenance was about to start in tea plantations. Let’s have a look inside the country. Soon there will be plum and cherry harvests in the Mediterranean and Aegean regions. Will workers expected to come from outside the province for harvest come? How will they have transferred? In vegetable farming, seedling plantation is carried out in different locations. Seedlings should be planted on time. The grower cannot plant their field without these seedlings. Each step depends on the human being who is the target of the coronavirus. The planting of summer plants like corn and sunflower is about to begin.
Delivering food to consumers is another important problem. Actually, every stage in agriculture is a difficult situation during the virus crisis. It is not particularly easy for wholesalers and exporters. Many agricultural products have to be consumed fresh and you cannot keep them for a long time. Therefore, wholesalers and exporters must dispose of their goods within a specified time. What can you do when border has been closed before you shipped your goods. Trading such quick consumable goods during corona outbreak is a risky job.
When the virus first appeared in China, Russia closed the border and stopped importing agricultural products. At that time, there was an increase in Turkey’s exports to Russia of fresh fruits and vegetables, especially lemon, but this led to price increases in the domestic market.
Currently, all elements of the sector, from fields to greenhouses, from gardens to wholesalers and markets, are experiencing uncertainty. Although the Ministries of Agriculture are making decisions about the effects of the epidemic on agriculture, there may be a series of problems that fall under the responsibility of other bodies. For example, local organizations or NGO’s may be involved in the creation of local harvest teams, consisting of volunteers. And his could be a temporally solution in case of worker shortage. So, it would be appropriate to create a “VIRUS AND AGRICULTURE WORKING GROUP” included related NGO’s immediately. This board, where related bodies-disciplines are gathered together, can use the chance putting into action on time, without skipping any problems. Again, agricultural and coronavirus-oriented scientific advisory boards to be established within the Ministry will have a great benefit in overcoming this crisis.
In recent years, thoughts about agriculture with local seeds have been brought to the fore as an alternative to industrial agriculture. Hybrid varieties are largely used in industrial agriculture today. Most of the seeds of hybrid varieties are brought from abroad and a small part (about 20%) is developed and marketed by domestic breeding companies. This article is prepared to show why hybrid varieties are important today by taking the example of hybrid corn.
At the beginning of the hybrid maize breeding work, hybrid varieties in the form of double cross hybrids were proposed by D.F. Jones in 1918 and became a model for hybrid breeding studies until the single hybrid varieties in the 1960s were developed. In the 1920s and 1930s, basic studies in breeding hybrid maize were conducted for the development of inbred lines from open pollinated varieties and the development of high-yielding double hybrid hybrid combinations of the inbred lines. In the 1950s and 1960s, innovations that made significant changes in hybrid corn seed production applications occurred and the development of single hybrid hybrid varieties came to the fore..
Hybrid breeding started with maize, which is a model plant, and later developed as the development of new hybrid varieties in cross pollinated field and vegetable plants. Today, hybrid varieties have been developed in some self-pollinated plants (tomato, rice) and hybrid breeding studies are still continuing in these plants.
Scientific basis of hybrid variety breeding is very short based on over dominance gene effect. It is possible to explain this very simply. Suppose that the quantitative feature of yield is created by four gene loci. Assume that recessive genes 1, heterozygous genes 2, and dominant genes 1.5 contribute to the yield in the formation of the phenotype. For example, let’s assume that the genes which affect the grain yield of the A parent are 4 aabbccDD genes and their phenotypic value = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1.5 + 4.5. Let’s assume that the 4 genes of ABBccdd genes that affect the grain yield of B parent and their phenotypic value = 1.5 + 1.5 + 1 + 1 = 5. Now, when we artificially hybridize these two parents, 4 grain yields in the chromosomes of hybrid (hybrid = F1) seeds will be combined in the form of heterozygous (AaBbCcDd) and phenotypic value = 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8. t shows that heterozygous, that is, F1 hybrid genotype has more phenotypic value than its parents. When we grow these hybrid (F1) seeds, the yield of the hybrid variety will be higher than that of the female (A) and male (B) parents. In this way, we can simply explain the advantages of hybrid seeds in terms of yield. However, since all genes are heterozygous level in hybridized plants in hybrid (F1) plants, when we plant seeds from these hybrid plants, the plants will be in the F2 generation and half of the heterozygous genes will become homozygous. Therefore, the yield will also decrease greatly. For this reason, it is a scientific necessity based on genetic structure in order to reproduce hybrid seeds every year and sow them as hybrid (F1) seeds and obtain high yield. The superiority of hybrid varieties can be evaluated in terms of producers, consumers and the food industry.
The growers in today’s world make sales depending on the amount of the product they harvest and accordingly have monetary income. At the same time, when their expenses fall from this value, their net income comes out. Although both the seed prices and fertilizer and spraying costs of the hybrid varieties are higher than the open pollinated varieties (developed as a result of population breeding), the growers’ net earnings are always higher due to the high yield. At the same time, since all the plants forming the hybrid (F1) variety have the same genotype, great convenience will be provided in the field operations (fertilizing, irrigation and spraying) that the growers will perform, as both the plant emerge and the growing, maturation and harvesting periods of the plants will be similar. Growers will also be advantageous in terms of marketing and price as there will be no mixing in the size and quality characteristics of the grain product they obtain. For these reasons, today, farmers producing commercial products always prefer to use hybrid varieties.
The most important advantage of hybrid varieties for the consumer is that there is a homogeneity in terms of consumption and use of the products. For example, since the grains in the cobs of hybrid corn are all of the same genotype, they are homogeneous both in terms of cooking time and the chemical content of the grain. However, due to the difference in the size of the cobs and the genotype of each seed, the open pollinated corn will have differences in terms of cooking time and product quality, which may lead to some reduction in quality. These situations show that the desires of the consumer coincide with hybrid varieties.
The most important advantage of hybrid varieties for the food industry is the standardization of the product. This provides great advantages in transportation, storage, packaging and processing of the product. At the same time, it provides great convenience in obtaining high quality products due to the same content of the processed product.
The development of hybrid varieties differs from the breeding of other cultivars. In hybrid variety breeding, it is firstly necessary to develop inbred lines and then to determine their general and specific combining ability and to indicate the most appropriate hybrid combinations and to develop hybrid seed production methods of these combinations. If two generations (greenhouse or the use of the world’s southern hemisphere) are grown per year, it is possible to develop a hybrid variety in 7 to 8 years. Since the 1960s, private sector hybrid seed companies have emerged as the hybrid variety seed must be replanted every year to maintain the same yield level. Today, private sector seed companies develop, produce and market hybrid seeds of many field and vegetable plants. Open-pollinated maize populations were used as source material in the early years of hybrid varieties to obtain inbred lines. However, it is not likely to increase the yield capacity by developing open-pollinated varieties (while the yield of open-pollinated maize is 300 kg / da, the yield of hybrid varieties has exceeded 1500 kg / da).
Corn is a cross pollinated plant, meaning that every seed in the cob can be fertilized with another pollen. This means that if this seed is planted, it means obtaining a plant different from the characteristics of the original plant. In this situation, using the seed from each plant the following year creates a heterogeneous plant population. In other words, it means a community formed by individuals who are different in terms of agricultural aspects such as plant heights, cob sizes, ripening times and grain contents. Therefore, due to the low productivity and heterogeneous nature of such varieties, they are not preferred today both in terms of farmers and the consumers and food industry. Although the population structure of open-pollinated varieties can be improved to some extent with bulk and individual selection breeding methods, it is not possible to be as high-yielding as hybrid varieties benefiting from over dominance gene effect. Therefore, in today’s societies, all developed countries use hybrid varieties in agricultural production, but open pollinated varieties are used in agricultural production in some under developing countries (in some African countries).
Meat Consumption May Be Very Effective in Climate Change
According to the latest estimates, the average temperature is expected to increase by 1.3 C0 by 2050 and 1.2 – 3.7 C0 by 2100. In addition to the increase in temperature, drought also negatively affects agriculture. For example, in the drought, the plant cannot fully develop and ripens early, as a result the yield drops. Of course, the event does not end with this. Changing climate causes vital changes of diseases and harmful factors. It is known that pests have migrated 2,7 kilometers north each year since 1960. Disease factors and pests can extend their lifespan, even increase their reproductive rate, and create new genotypes. This will be a disaster for world agriculture. Because the new diseases and pest-resistant varieties in question have not been improved yet, and drugs to combat them have not yet been formulated!
On the other hand, by 2050, the amount of food we consume now, will have to be increased by 70%.
This increase is estimated to be around 80% for meat and 52% for grain. This means that today’s annual world meat production of 260 million tons will have to be increased to 455 million tons annually in the 2050s.
The negative impact of agriculture, especially livestock, on the environment is not to be underestimated.
For example, 322 liters of water is consumed for one kilogram of vegetables, 962 liters of water for one kilogram of fruit, while 4325 liters for one kilo of chicken, 8763 liters for one kilo of mutton and 8763 liters for one kilo of beef. It should not be forgotten that one third of the grain produced in the world is used as animal feed. Another fact is that 80% of antibiotics used in the USA are used in animal husbandry.
We have to protect our land and water resources for sustainable agricultural production in the future. If we do not pay attention to the use of agricultural resources, we will face problems in terms of sustainable food production in the future. Due to antropogen environmental pollution, the scorecard of agriculture does not look very good. For example, 70% of world clean water consumption is used in food production.
With our todays agricultural production, we have to focus a little more on the “environment-food-health” triangle in the reality of millions of hungry, underfed, insufficient micronutrients and obese populations. Here we come across three objectives:
1) developing in agricultural production technology;
2) reduction in food losses and waste throughout the supply chain;
3) changing individuals’ food options and dietary patterns.
The issue of agricultural production providing maximum efficiency by minimizing the environment is encountered in many current publications.
Let’s try to examine the possible effects of individuals’ food options and dietary patterns on the protection of our land and water resources. It is a fact that eating habits play a major role in food consumption. The behavior of consumer groups such as vegan and vegetarian, especially in meat consumption, is known very well. Although meat stands out especially as a protein source, it is known that legume proteins from plant sources is almost equal to meat protein in terms of nutrition. In this case, let’s compare the resources required to produce one kilo of meat and one kilo of beans in the table below. It is immediately noticeable that the required production area, amount of water, fertilizer and chemical to be used, is almost ten times differing.
Land (m2)
Water(m3)
Fertilizer (gr)
Chemical (gr)
Bean
3,8
2,5
39
2,2
Meat
52
20,2
360
17,2
When we convert the figures into protein, we see that 18 times more land, 10 times more water, 12 times more fertilizer and 10 times more chemicals are used to obtain one kg of meat protein.
The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere for a kg production of some foods can be viewed on the chart. As can be seen from the graphic, when a kilo of beans is produced, one kg of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This figure rises to two kg of CO2 for one kg of milk, 5 kg of CO2 for one kg of chicken, 10 kg of CO2 for one kg of cheese and 27 kg of CO2 for one kg of beef
In general, it is known that those who follow a plant-based diet, namely vegetarians, are healthier. They have a very low risk of developing many diseases. Vegetarians are very unlikely to develop type 2 diabetes, obesity, coronary heart disease and other non-communicable diseases. A well-planned vegetarian diet is sufficient for body development and growth. Meatless diets are suitable not only for prevention, but also for the treatment of many diseases.
It is estimated that the vegetarian lifestyle can reduce the greenhouse gas level by an average of 35%, food production areas by an average of 42% and agricultural water use by an average of 28%. This fact has already initiated some practices to shift to a meat-free diet in societies that are environmentally conscious. The meatless menu application launched in the canteens and restaurants of UK universities already has 44 universities
It is observed with pleasure that a plant-based meat market has been opened and it is estimated that an amount of 85 billion dollars will be reached by 2030s.
A Swiss investment firm UBS estimates that the 4.6 billion dollars plant-based protein and meat market in 2018 will reach 85 billion dollars by 2030[1]. The same source adds that the plant-based milk market could reach 37.5 billion dollars for the 2025’s, while the improving health and welfare of society is the main driver of these increases (one billion consumers in the next decade will move to the middle class!).
On the other hand, in a report published by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), it discussed the expectation of the increase in agricultural production towards the 2050’s. The report mentioned the need to increase the amount of food we currently consume by 70 percent, while the increase is estimated to be around 80 percent for meat and 52 percent for grain. This means that today, 260 million tons of world meat production will have to be increased to 455 million tons in the 2050’s.
In the UBS report, while focusing on environment and animal health, more and more consumers prefer plant-based protein sources. Indeed, while the negative contribution of agriculture to the environment is expressed, animal husbandry comes to the fore. For example, 322 litres of water for one kilo of vegetables, 962 litres of water for one kilo of fruit, 4325 litres for one kilo of chicken meat, 8763 litres for one kilo of mutton and 8763 litres of water for one kilo of beef. In addition, one third of the grain produced in the world is for eating, that is, for animal feeding. In addition to water consumption, animal husbandry cannot be said to be innocent. It is not new information that substances such as pathogen, metal, drug – hormone residues mix into water. Another fact is that 80 percent of the antibiotics used in the USA are used in animal husbandry.
80 percent of the world’s agricultural land, meadow-pasture and vegetative production areas for eating are devoted to animal husbandry. According to various estimates, 6-32 percent of the greenhouse gas incidents are responsible for animal husbandry.
By 2013, scientists began to show that meat could now be obtained in laboratories. Not only that, the event was commercialized (University of Maastricht, Netherlands, Prof. Mark Post, (Mosa Meat)). In the US, companies established in this direction are supported commercially by food giants such as Memphis Meats, Cargill, Tyson Food, as well as well-known investors such as Bill Gates and Richard Bronson. It is a fact that EU companies like Nestle and Unilever will not miss this opportunity. The German PHW group has already started the acquisition of the new entrepreneur Israeli “Supermeat”. This business seems to tend to move beyond chicken and beef. FinlessFoods utilizes cell culture to artificially produce red tuna meat on land, which has reached its extinction point.
In fact, meat is mainly composed of muscle, fat and connective tissue cells. From the stem cell, meat formation begins when appropriate nutrients are provided for their development. This system, which is also monitored in the animal body, can be performed not only in the laboratory but also in larger environments. Thus, our meat will be healthier and safer without antibiotics, medicines. These artificial products seem to be able to find a place because of the above mentioned environmental disadvantages, their cheapness, their benefits to human health and their potential to protect the welfare of animals. Although the soybean is mainly provided by the plant nutrient medium, the yellow pea was found to be most suitable.
It may take time to fully launch. Although Memphis Meats calls “We are on the market in 2021”, it is a fact that many scientific problems are waiting for a solution.
Meanwhile, another US firm, Justforall, announced that it would be chicken-free chicken meat on the shelves by the end of 2018[2].
The vegetarian menu offered by Impossible Burger is also interesting in nearly 1500 restaurants in the USA. As meat substitutes here, vegetable protein (soy) tissues provide flavour equivalent to meat, while color provides with leghemoglobin from soy roots. However, said plant hemoglobin is low in soy and will now be derived from a yeast species (Pichia pastoris)[3]. Although these yeasts are genetically modified organisms, they are not subject to biotechnology regulations either in the United States or in the EU.
A chick could only be marketed in 112 days in the 1900’s, but this time was reduced to 45 days. I wonder what bioeconomics will offer us. Or will he? It seems that the economic dimension of the event is so important that the US Cattlemen’s Association has taken action to ban plant-based clean meat[4].
The green revolution of the 1960s, which ended the world food shortages,
created the opportunity for the organic agriculture market to flourish in the
1980s. Its emergence is based on a logic that cannot be rejected by anyone.
Organic agriculture started due to the health and environmental problems caused
by chemicals such as fertilizer and pesticide used in classical agriculture,
unfortunately lags behind classical agriculture in terms of yield.
As can be seen in the graph[1],
organic wheat yield is only 40% of the yield in conventional agriculture in
some countries. When the comparison is made on annual (grass) and perennial
(trees) basis, it is observed that the difference decreases in perennials. In
the comparison of legume-others, it can be said that the yield difference
decreases in legumes, although not statistically. In the comparison of species,
the difference was found to be the least in fruits, less in oil and vegetables,
and more in root crops such as potatoes due to the depth of roots.
The main reason for the low yields per unit area in organic agriculture
compared to classical agriculture is that genotypes and varieties that provide
maximum yield in limited nutrient media have not been developed yet. The
condition of organic agriculture with organic seeds which is also included in
the directives of organic agriculture (Açıkgöz
N., and Ilker E. 2006 Cereal breeding strategies for organic and low-external-input
crop production systems, Paper presented at Joint Organic Congress, Odense, Denmark, May 30-31, 2006), organic-classical yield
difference does not seem to be closed unless provided.
The organic plant industry demands a higher price for its products. It
can be observed that the price difference exceeds twice that of some products.
This means that organic products will be consumed only by the masses with high
income levels. In other words, the low income strata do not exist in the
organic product market. Organic farming, including Turkey, is supported by many
countries. While 1000 ₺ per hectare is given in Turkey, Germany gives 10
percent additional premium to classical agricultural support. However, due to
the fact that no difference could be observed in organic-classical products in
terms of nutritional values[2], there
has been hesitation in organic supports. As a matter of fact, the United
Kingdom has stopped spending the funds it has allocated[3].
In spite of all this, in 2017, expenditures on organic food approached
100 billion dollars. This is quite striking since data of 1999 was 11 billion
dollars. However consumption is concentrated in prosperous countries: 40
billion dollars in the US, 37 billion dollars in the EU (France 10 billion
dollars, Germany 8 billion dollars). Meanwhile the total value of the world
food market in 2015 was 5 trillion dollars.
While the area allocated to organic agriculture is 0.9 percent of the total
agricultural area in the USA, this figure is three times more in the EU: 2.9
percent. Some countries show really interesting figures in the proportion of
organic land on agricultural land: Austria 22 percent, Estonia 19 percent and
Sweden 18 percent. There is a large difference in the number of farmers engaged
in organic farming: while they are 400,000 in the EU and only several thousand
in the United States.
Between 2000 and 2016, per capita consumption of organic products in
Europe increased fourfold. In addition to demand, production support was also
effective in this increase. According to 2016 data, Europe consumes an average
of 60 euros of organic food per year. Based on the fact that 6.4 percent of the
EU’s agriculture and environmental budget is allocated to organic agriculture,
organic food consumption should be expected to increase further in the EU. This
rate increases even more in some countries. For example, it reaches 13.2
percent in Denmark.
The organic products sector which has a price of 150 percent higher than
conventional products will surely have many problems. For this reason, the
certification bodies have to constantly set new standards. Many issues, such as
bio-labeling, monitoring of pesticide – fertilizer residues, setting
thresholds, force these organizations and their upper organs to be alert with
new products. If import-export is involved in all of this, it becomes clear
that the business will not be easy. “Mafia ties were found in Italy related to wheat
imports from Romania that had been labelled as organic, the Financial Times
reported. Another example of fraud is 40 tonnes of German strawberries
labelled as organic, which were found to contain 25 pesticides, German media
outlet Taz reported this month”[4].
Starting in 1995, China’s central government carried out a series of programs aimed at spending billions of dollars to raise China’s top universities to world standards. First, a package application was launched to raise 100 universities to the level of the western universities of the 21stcentury. In 2015, a second program focused on designated departments wit hinthese institutions.
China, a “developing country” in the 21th century, has been one of the superpowers of science and technology for the last 30 years. China’s scintific and technological advancement will lead to its rapid economic development. According to Scopus[1] records, China has increased the number of publications in science, mathematics and computerscience to from 200,000 to 1.650.000 between 1986 and 2016 (Chart1). The citation rate of Chinies scientists have reached 23% in all countries. If Chinese publications were included, this figure would have reached 37%.
In 1900, resistance against for eigners, especially Christians, began in Beijing. This movement, known as the “Boxer Rebellion” has resulted in China’s payment to the United States as compensation. Tsinghua University[2] was founded in 1911 with these funds. Today, this university is a source of pride for China through science, technology and engineering research. Accordingto Scopus records, this university is number one, among the most cited 15 universities in the world; also SEVEN of them are Chinese, which is an evidence of the rapid rise of the country in science and technology.
Money as a lever, provides universities with the opportunity to plan for top class research intriguing academicians to sophisticated research which can yield to more powerful findings. Universities can open up new horizons for their academicians within the framework of their monetary powers. About 30 years ago in China, universities have started to give scholarships to their academicians in return for their published papers in certain global science magazines-journals. Today, these awards have reached to a very high amounts. A recent example is US $ 165,000 scholarship awarded for a publication in the “Nature” journal which is 20 times as the annual salary of an academic in China. These monetary awards have had a direct impact on the rise of the rate of Chinese-cited papers from 4% in 2000 to 19% in 2016.
Generally, PhD studies are prominent in research. Tsinghua University believes in the importance of the number in academic achievement and gives the opportunity to many PhD students. In 2017, 1,385 candidate have completed their thesis at this university. In the same year, only 645 PhD students have graduated from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
With the support of the state in recent years, Chinese universities have benefited from reverse brain drain. Universities like Tsinghua may not providet he facilities and opportunities of a western university. But the idealist scientists, who want to raise their children in their homeland, with national pride will always emerge. As yearly salaries were raised to the six-digits, China has benefited the most from this trend. For ample, Tsinghua University transferred Qian Yingyi, a scientist who has worked at universities such as Columbia, Yale, Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley, who has focused to the newhorizons of innovation. Qian put into practice an American-style personnel system with no personal relations or political impositions, focusing on “a six-year research period, followed by a performance evaluation, based on publications, followed by a continuous job offer or put an end to the task”. The results were astonishing. The step up of Tsinghua University in the ranking of Chinese mathematics-computer-research league table was unexpected. In 2006-09, the university was ranked 66th and it was number one in the last year!
In 2012, the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen has invited He Jiankui, one of their former physic students back, after his completion of a PhD in Physics at Rice University in Texas, and post doctoral research at Stanford University focused on gene-genome sequences. His father described Jiankui’s return to his country with a short sentence: “He found the Chinese scientific research is weak and he wants to improve it!”. And he has indeed! Jianku has enabled the birth of twin babies with genome editing (not GMO)—the first gene editing result in human medicine in the world. CRISPR/Cas method has been used to regulate the genes of twin babies to be resistant to HIV[3],[4]. This method is used in the plant world recent years. In the number of researches, conducted in this field, China is also the leading one (541). It is followed by USA (387), Japan (819) and Germany[5].
All nations should look to China as an example when it comes to attractingtalented, enthusiastic and new research teams and replacing their mediocre performers who are a drain to the system with this new blood. Such a system that is divorced from personal agendas and political impositions is the onlyway to move our universes up in world rankings.
The EU aims to become the first climate-neutral continent in 2050 with the European Green Deal (EGD) announced in December 2019. It is a fact that a new strategy will be adopted to achieve this and all policies will be reshaped in line with climate change. The Green Deal, which envisages fundamental changes in EU policies in several areas ranging from agriculture to industry, from energy to transportation, is one of the EU’s biggest initiatives.
There are many reasons for the EU to take the necessary measures against the climate crisis. For example, in the summer of 2022, some countries experienced the worst drought in the last 500 years; up to 30% yield loss in products such as corn and soybeans; yield losses due to extreme heat during the flowering period and dry periods in southeastern countries; a huge increase in electricity, water, and other production inputs, and even increases in prices of some of the inputs exceeding 300%…
The “Adaptation to 55” legislative amendment package was published by the European Commission on July 14, 2021, to review EU climate, energy, land use, transportation and taxation policies to ensure a 55% emission reduction by 2030 compared to the 1990 level.
Just last year, Europe made a series of decisions on behalf of organic nutrition, to be implemented in the coming years. Of course, these decisions also included targets such as eliminating CO2 emissions and improving energy efficiency. These decisions: reducing the use of chemical pesticides by 50% by 2030, reducing the use of fertilizers by at least 20% by 2030, 25% in organic agriculture areas by 2030 and a certain increase in organic aquaculture, etc.
However, with the impact of the climate crisis and war, Poland, Spain, and Hungary took action to change the “Farm to Fork” regulations. Although food safety in the EU is not under direct threat, it is a fact that the European Union is undoubtedly going through a complex period. The ongoing effects of COVID-19, price shocks in the world food, energy and fertilizer markets, as well as the current geopolitical situation that has led to shortages of some raw materials, cannot be denied. In addition to high inflation, the Covid-19 crisis and the Russia-Ukraine war had a negative impact on the EU. In the last 2 years, around 7 million refugees took refuge in European countries. Due to the economic sanctions imposed by the EU against Russia and the decline in industrial production capacity resulting from the interruption of natural gas flow, the negative economic effects increased further and economic stagnation began.
Within the framework of the green agreement, the ecological transition of EU member states, reducing the use of pesticides and fertilizers, developing organic agriculture and protecting biodiversity have brought new burdens to farmers. On the other hand, with bilateral trade agreements, the increase in the import of cheap agricultural products from countries producing outside EU standards caused the anger of EU farmers, while farmers in France literally invaded Paris, claiming that “farmer suicide is increasing due to bankruptcy and difficulties.” The head of the farmers’ organization said: “WHO WILL HELP THE FARMERS IN THE TIME OF NEED? We have not received any help in this mess so far. That’s why we demand help that goes directly into the pockets of the farmers, we should not play with the food.”
Among the main reasons for the protests are climate regulations and the Green Deal. Changes in climate-related agricultural policies against producers, water restrictions, efforts to remove or reduce subsidies, and grain imported from Ukraine are other reasons.
Apparently, the main culprits of global warming, climate change, and carbon emissions are the global colonial order, the WEST, that is, global capital, and the irresponsible industrialization they cause, while experiencing a consumption explosion, and trying to make farmers pay the price for this is a mistake.
Another objection of farmers was the legal regulations regarding new gene techniques. Farmer organizations wanted gene editing, which had just come into play in plant breeding, to be valued in the same category as GMO legislation. Interestingly, on February 7, 2024, the European Parliament accepted the Commission proposal on new gene techniques by 307 votes to 263 (41 abstentions). The positive vote was in line with the application of new gene techniques that enable the breeding of new plant varieties that are climate-resistant, resistant to pests, have higher yields and require less fertilizer and pesticides, by fulfilling certain conditions (excluding GMOs).
The Green Deal is very important for many countries like Türkiye. This is not only about the EU being its agricultural product market but also about the expectation of paralleling world standards in all our lives, from economy to social life. Therefore, it is inevitable for the agreement in the EU to be well explained to the public with its background.
It can be expected that the rebellion of European farmers will bring about time delays in the implementation of the green deal. For example, unconfirmed newspaper reports that the French agriculture minister may extend restrictions on fertilizer use beyond 2030…
The philosophy adopted while laying the foundations of organic agriculture was based on principles that no one would say no to, such as protecting future generations in agriculture, having water, saving energy, and protecting labor.
Transgenic (GMO) and organic farming have come to the fore in the last 30-40 years in world agriculture. The first occupies 15% of the cultivated land, the second 1.5%.
Organic farming markets are becoming more widespread as their contents are developed. European and US markets represent almost 95% of the world markets with 58 billion and 57 billion dollars.
Of course, all parts of these markets came to these parts with certain series. For example, a 12% scene was captured in Europe in 2021 compared to the previous season. The Covid-19 epidemic has certainly played a role in this. However, in 2022, there was a decrease, not a season. The situation changed, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 having significant monitoring knock-on effects on EU school member economies. Trade disruptions and increased consumption caused by energy costs and food prices are increasing their consumption. To save money, many consumers chose to buy cheaper food products, and in 2022 the organic market forecast fell by 5%. Because of this event, our title “Is Organic Sustainable?” was formed.
This development may revise the long-term regulations of the EU organic market, and the European Commission’s Green Deal strategy. Aiming to fundamentally change the way EU agriculture works and food production for EU consumers, the EU’s scope of this strategy aimed to eliminate CO2 emissions by Christmas 2030, reduce chemical pesticides by 50% to improve energy consumption, and eliminate the use of fertilizers by at least 20% by Christmas. It also planned to increase organic production and consumption to reach 25 percent of organic farmland in the EU by 2030.
A very dry summer, low fertilizer supplies, energy demonstrations, and a 12 percent and 16 percent drop in staple crops such as sunflower and corn, respectively, took the European agriculture sector by storm (1). Continuing food security protection through the war Poland, Spain, and Hungary have taken action to change the declines in the EU’s “From Farm to Fork” organic farming practices.
Organic farming is also being promoted in other parts of the world. In the USA, 15% of vegetables and fruits are obtained from organic farming. In fact, the end of the organic small family business has recently been adopted by medium businesses. The shift from organic agriculture to larger lands was almost regulatory. Larger farms have a big advantage over small farms from a tillage point of view. They are expanding their capital to invest in machinery necessary for the solution of small business labor and tillage. Already in the USA, 97% of large farms were mechanized, while businesses with these small numbers remained at 54%.
In the spring of 2021, President Rajapaksa took a poorly understood decision, despite warnings from a group of scientists and agronomists: He banned the import of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides almost overnight, forcing Sri Lanka’s millions of farmers to engage in organic farming in one place. NGOs that advocate the defense of organic agriculture and are actively influenced by many international groups have a great influence on this decision. However, this fertilizer-free and pesticide-free organic farming has resulted in product losses of up to 50%, especially in controls such as wheat and paddy.
In addition to the two-three-year land preparation, the state support is protective in organic agriculture, where less product is obtained than the conventional product. The commodities businesses made by the three researchers by scanning the publications around the world are displayed in the chart where the six categories of producers display a 3 to 33% difference according to the conventional-organic product difference percentages.
Provisions that put forward some suggestions on behalf of the said closure difference. So how can plant breeders’ clothes survive? With classical plant breeding, the construction of new, resistant varieties requires many years. Therefore, the new strategy for targets of suitable genotypes seems to govern the deployment of new technologies.
While the standards of organic bees were determined, non-GMO production, which was one of the controversial issues of that period, was added to the regulations. The use of GMO cultivars resistant to corn stem borer, which started in the USA in 1996, has increased to over 90% in the 2020s. Thus, 200 gr per hectare. the discarded drug has been reset. How can the “organic agriculture of GMO corn” be rejected with straight logic, which resets the use of chemical pesticides and compensates for the loss of yield in that organic agriculture? Both organic agriculture and agricultural biotechnology visionaries around the world have sought solutions to future food problems, arguing that some old and outdated guidelines should be renewed. For example, when Tijeniro et al. says “Genetically Modified Organisms Can Be Organic”, they state that there is no need for economic, environmental, nutritional, and food safety concerns about GMOs in organic agriculture. should present information and emphasize the added value of the use of GMOs in organic agriculture, the current policy that GMOs cannot be included in organic food production is outdated”. The legislation allowing GMOs in organic agriculture and the policy on this issue should be changed. It would be appropriate to make seed production at the same standards in GMO and organic agriculture. Genetically modified organisms should provide a sustainable solution to conventional farming by increasing crop yields and reducing the number of pesticides and herbicides used, allowing GMOs to fall under the definition of organic.
There is no GMO production in many countries. For this reason, even though these issues seem far from them, it is necessary to be ready to brainstorm on this subject. As a result, we have to embrace new technologies for the food security of tomorrow. In the first stage, it is necessary to enlighten society on this issue, and especially to inform the decision-making bodies.
Nazimi Acikgoz
Organic agriculture, organic whit GMO, is organic economic, performance of organic, organic in EU, economy of organics
It is estimated that by 2050 demand for food overall will increase by 70% , while seafood demand will increase by 100% . Demand for seafood increases on average by 12% every year. Let’s keep in mind while 8 kg of feed is required to produce one kilogram of red meat whereas only one kilogram is required to produce one kilogram of fish.
There has been a number scientific and commercial breakthroughs to solve for these expected increases in demand for food. The most striking one is “plant-based meat”. The CEO of a plant-based meat production company recently argued that they “will have finished the meat industry by 2035.” Similarly, the innovation that came with transgenic salmon in seafood in the 2010s continues with plant-based salmon meat production.
Scientists began to demonstrate in 2013 that meat can be produced in laboratories. Mark Post, a professor at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, went further and commercialized lab-produced meat. Meat is predominantly a combination of muscle, fat and connective tissue cells. Meat formation begins when the appropriate nutrients are provided for their development, starting from the stem cell. Thus, lab meat is antibiotic-free, drug-free, healthier, and safer. We should expect to see a continued increase in shelf space and market share of these artificial products due to their many advantages from environmental to human health, from economic to animal welfare.
Although soybean mainly provides the plant food environment, yellow peas were found to be the most suitable. Here, vegetable protein (soy-pea) textures offer meat-like flavor, while color is provided by leghemoglobin obtained from soybean roots. However, since the vegetable hemoglobin in question is low in soy, the color has begun to be obtained from a yeast species (Pichia pastoris). These yeasts in the group of genetically modified products are not subject to legal regulations regarding biotechnology neither in the USA nor in the EU.
Plant-based protein production has also been commercialized for red tuna meat. In addition, chicken and beef is also introduced to the market. Plant-based egg, milk, cheese, oil and yogurt have started to appear on market shelves. The plant-based protein movement has caused the manufacturers of animal produce serious concern which led to regulations around the use of words like “meat”, “milk”, “yogurt”, “oil” or even their images in the promotion and marketing of these products. The two sides have been vocal about their perspectives on each other’s market potential. While the animal producers have argued plant-based protein cannot even come close to the “real deal” the executives of plant-based food companies, like the one mentioned before, are very bullish on the future of this market.
The quality of plant-based products developed with the latest biotechnological advancements and innovation is not different from that of regular meat, milk and eggs. Additionally researchers point to the advantage of fiber in plant-based products which is the main requirement of the fauna. It is also true that plant-based products contain more sodium than regular meat. Plant-based protein producers also carry out a series of enrichment processes such as vitamins D and B12 in order to achieve real meat quality.
When it comes to plant-based fish, the stem cells from the salmon are cultured in a plant-based skeleton to produce the flavor and texture. However, there are some limitations to the production: the product is currently designed for raw consumption, namely for the sushi industry. In the culture phase, the cells intermingle with the skeleton and direct the cells to turn into fat or tissue, resulting in a salmon meat appearance and taste.
In 2015, AquaBounty Technologies received permission from the US Food and Drug Administration to manufacture and market transgenic (GMO) salmon. GMO salmon can grow year-round and therefore grow rapidly (versus regular salmon which can only thrive in warm months) and reach marketing maturity in 16-18 months (versus regular salmon’s 30 months). Farm-raised Atlantic salmon is a production model that does not require antibiotics and reduced feed consumption by 10%. The cheaper and less labor-intensive transgenic salmon production provides further economic advantages to the producer and the consumer.
In addition to these genetic developments, adaptation initiatives will contribute to increasing the world fish stocks as is the case with Turkish-Black Sea salmon. For Turkish salmon, which achieved an export figure of 200 million dollars in the first 9 months of 2022, the authorities forecast production of 100 thousand tons and export of 500 million dollars in the next year, and 200 thousand tons of production and an export of one billion dollars for 2030.
It sure sounds like we will not face any fish shortage in the future, what do you think?
NO CHANCE TO FOOD CRISIS 