Improving Crop Productivity and Ensuring Food Security through the Adoption of Genetically Modified Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I did like the paper and I think that the core of what it does is well presented.  The reviews adequately the contributions of GM agriculture but only disqualifies opposing views. I am saying without necessarily subscribing to the practises of NGOs. But saying, for example, they  are mostly "leftists" does no help the debate. Is this an implicit defence of "rightist" groups? Or the only value is in the "centrists"?  In any case, this is not the style of discussion one would expect to see in a science and evidence based argumentation. Likewise, it does not help the debate to praise, towards the end, the private sector.  As if there are no real concerns about the private sector and if there is no real need to socially oversee the private sector, as the  climate change inaction clearly suggests.

I would like to see a science based discussion of GM's actual and potential shortcomings. One question that came to mind while reading the paper is the following. True: genetic changes do occur in nature, as the paper points out; but GM accelerates them. Does this acceleration have no implications at all?  To be published as a science paper, this draft needs to be thoroughly faithful to science and evidence.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers’ Comments

We deeply appreciate the feedback and the comments given by the reviewers. They have guided us in preparing a revised version of our manuscript. We have heeded all the advice and suggestions given by the reviewers and are grateful for such.

Reviewer 1

In the text we have revised the paper according to suggestions given by the reviewer.

Reviewer 2

Each comment was addressed in the revised version.

Moreover, we added the references suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer 3

The comments were addressed in the text in yellow.

Line 296 was reworded according to your suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper addresses an important topic. I miss a few references. E.g. the early success of Bt maize and HR maize has been discussed by Marnus Gouse and colleagues. Enoch Kikulwe and colleagues have written about the economics and politics of GM banana in Uganda. Jennifer Thomson has written a book about the history of GM crops in Africa and Robert Paarlberg has discussed the political economy. This section in paper needs more attention. Their contribution needs to be included as well.

Qaim and Zilberman have argued that in particular in countries where the use of control techniques is not well developed, genetic engineering can yield substantial benefits. Some scholars have shown a high potential for SSA and have discussed the political economy behind the debate on GM crops in South Africa. These are all important issues that need to be considered as well. A recent opinion piece in PNAS has stressed the importance of biofortification (Golden Rice)

Gouse, M. et al. 2016. Genetically Modified Maize: Less Drudgery for Her, More Maize for Him? Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South Africa. World Development 83: 27-38.

Paarlberg, R. 2008. Starved for science: how biotechnology is being kept out of Africa. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Qaim, M. and D. Zilberman. 2000.Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science 299: 900-902.

Thomson, J. 2021. GM Crops and the Global Divide. CABI. 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers’ Comments

We deeply appreciate the feedback and the comments given by the reviewers. They have guided us in preparing a revised version of our manuscript. We have heeded all the advice and suggestions given by the reviewers and are grateful for such.

Reviewer 1

In the text we have revised the paper according to suggestions given by the reviewer.

Reviewer 2

Each comment was addressed in the revised version.

Moreover, we added the references suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer 3

The comments were addressed in the text in yellow.

Line 296 was reworded according to your suggestion.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article reviews possible advantages of using GM crops in SSA. As such the article presents a literature review of potential advantages which may be interesting for non-informed readers but the article is according to me on the one hand  general and on the other hand one-sided

general: The article lists a great number of potential advantages of GM crops but of course these cannot be realized all at the same time because each GM intervention has a certain objective. Now the article is written as if simply applying GM is a miracle solution for all problems in SSA context; So authors should be more critical on this point: what works in which circumstances.

one-sided: As said miracle solutions do not exist in particular because putting GM crops in a real environment shows that they do not always realize the benefits in particular in small holder settings were the farmers lack often the needed skills needed to apply the cultivation conditions necessary for GM varieties. So also here the authors should be more critical.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers’ Comments

We deeply appreciate the feedback and the comments given by the reviewers. They have guided us in preparing a revised version of our manuscript. We have heeded all the advice and suggestions given by the reviewers and are grateful for such.

Reviewer 1

In the text we have revised the paper according to suggestions given by the reviewer.

Reviewer 2

Each comment was addressed in the revised version.

Moreover, we added the references suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer 3

The comments were addressed in the text in yellow.

Line 296 was reworded according to your suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is ok

Author Response

Thank you for your reviews.

Reviewer 2 Report

Further improvements needed:

• reference to cow pea in Nigeria has not been included;
• line 81-82: imports is not an argument for urgency. The comparative advantage of other countries producing rice can be welfare increasing. 
• line 82-84: add a source.
• line 351; a better source is Herring and Paarlberg: The political economy of biotechnology. Annual Review of Resource Economics.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer

Information and references on the development of an insect resistant GM cow-pea variety in Nigeria has been added.

In line 82-84 the source was provided, (Bernard et al., 2020).

In line 351 the source Herring and Paarlberg: The political economy of biotechnology. Annual Review of Resource Economics, was cited as per suggestion.

All revisions done are indicated in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf