Field Crop 2024, Vol.7, No.2, 45-57 http://cropscipublisher.com/index.php/fc 53 8.2 Public perception and controversies surrounding GM maize Public perception of GM maize is mixed and often polarized. While some view GM crops as a technological advancement that can address food security and agricultural sustainability, others express concerns about their long-term health and environmental impacts. The controversies surrounding GM maize include fears of cross-pollination with non-GM crops, the introduction of new allergens, and the potential for antibiotic resistance marker genes to affect human health (Halford and Shewry, 2000). Additionally, there is a significant debate on the ethical implications of modifying the genetic makeup of crops and the potential monopolization of seed markets by large biotech companies (Halford and Shewry, 2000; Aziz et al., 2022). These concerns have led to widespread hostility and calls for more transparent communication and rigorous scientific investigations to address public fears and misconceptions (Aziz et al., 2022). 8.3 Ethical and social considerations The ethical and social considerations of using GM maize in sustainable agriculture are multifaceted. Ethical concerns revolve around the manipulation of natural organisms and the potential unforeseen consequences of genetic modifications. There is also a moral debate on the right to modify the genetic structure of living organisms for human benefit (Aziz et al., 2022). Socially, the adoption of GM maize can have significant implications for smallholder farmers, particularly in developing countries. Issues such as seed sovereignty, dependency on biotech companies for seeds, and the potential displacement of traditional farming practices are critical considerations (Halford and Shewry, 2000; Aziz et al., 2022). Addressing these ethical and social issues requires a balanced approach that considers both the potential benefits of GM maize in enhancing food security and the need to respect and preserve traditional agricultural practices and biodiversity (Aziz et al., 2022). 9 Challenges and Limitations 9.1 Potential risks and health concerns The adoption of genetically modified (GM) maize has raised several potential risks and health concerns. One of the primary concerns is the long-term impact of GM crops on human health, which remains a contentious issue due to the lack of conclusive long-term studies. Additionally, there are fears about the potential for GM crops to cause allergic reactions or transfer antibiotic resistance markers to humans (Azadi et al., 2015). Environmental risks, such as the unintended harm to non-target species and the potential for GM crops to crossbreed with wild relatives, further complicate the debate (Azadi et al., 2015). 9.2 Overregulation and its impact on innovation Overregulation of GM crops can stifle innovation and slow the adoption of beneficial technologies. Regulatory frameworks in many countries are stringent, requiring extensive testing and approval processes that can be both time-consuming and costly. This can deter investment in GM research and development, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises that may lack the resources to navigate complex regulatory landscapes (Azadi et al., 2015). The high costs associated with meeting regulatory requirements can also limit the availability of GM seeds to farmers, particularly in developing countries where regulatory barriers are often higher (Azadi et al., 2015). 9.3 Socio-economic barriers to adoption Socio-economic barriers significantly impact the adoption of GM maize, especially among small-scale farmers. The high cost of GM seeds and the associated intellectual property rights can make it difficult for resource-poor farmers to access these technologies (Azadi et al., 2015). Additionally, there is often a lack of adequate information and extension services to educate farmers about the benefits and proper use of GM crops, leading to low adoption rates (Azadi et al., 2015). Socio-economic concerns also include the potential for GM crops to exacerbate existing inequalities in the agricultural sector, as wealthier farmers are more likely to afford and benefit from these technologies (Azadi et al., 2015).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODY0NQ==