Overcoming Agricultural Challenges with GMOs as a Catalyst for Poverty Reduction and Sustainability in Lebanon

Abstract

This study assesses the potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on poverty reduction and agricultural development in Lebanon, against a backdrop of economic crisis and agricultural uncertainties. GMO adoption is considered a viable strategy to enhance food security, spur economic growth, and alleviate poverty. Simulating various GMO adoption scenarios, specifically in the apple agriculture sector of Mount Lebanon’s Sannine–Baskinta area, this research examines their effects on poverty rates. The findings demonstrate a substantial reduction in poverty rates, from 55% to 36%, with a simulated GMO adoption rate of 70%, underscoring the transformative potential of GMOs in poverty alleviation. The study highlights the critical importance of well-informed decision-making and evidence-based policymaking to address challenges in the agriculture sector. It serves as a foundational pilot project for the introduction of genetically modified crops in Lebanese agriculture, with a focus on the Sannine–Baskinta region. The identified GMOs offer prospects for enhanced resilience to weather conditions and pests, reduced pesticide usage, elimination of chemical fertilizers, increased yield, and improved nutritional value. Future research endeavors aim to extend the project to encompass other crops and regions in Lebanon, as well as in other Arab countries.

1. Introduction

Sustainable agriculture forms the cornerstone of Lebanon’s economic and societal well-being. It not only nurtures the land but also ensures the long-term prosperity of rural communities and the nation as a whole. By balancing the needs of today with the demands of tomorrow, sustainable agriculture safeguards natural resources and preserves the delicate ecological balance. This commitment to sustainability is paramount in addressing the myriad challenges faced by the agricultural sector. Agriculture in Lebanon boasts a storied history, tracing its roots back to ancient times. The nation’s diverse climate and topographical variations have fostered the cultivation of a wide array of crops.

However, this sector is confronted with numerous challenges that hinder its development and contribute to high poverty rates. One of the key issues is the prevalence of extreme poverty among household heads involved in agricultural activities. Over fifty percent of these individuals are classified as very poor, highlighting the urgent need for interventions to improve their livelihoods and well-being. Several other factors such as the lack of access to modern germplasm and improved seed varieties contribute to the difficulties faced by this sector. Small landholdings limit farmers’ ability to expand production and increase their income. Also, limited access to credit constrains investment in modern technologies and equipment that could enhance productivity. The absence or inadequacy of essential infrastructure and technological support further hampers the sector’s potential for growth. Water scarcity poses another challenge. Despite Lebanon having relatively high rainfall levels in the region, the lack of proper water management systems hinders the efficient utilization of rainwater for irrigation and other agricultural purposes. Additionally, traditional farming methods also impede progress in the sector. Many small-scale farmers still rely on age-old practices that limit their productivity and income.

Although the Lebanese government has taken some steps to modernize the agriculture sector, such as providing subsidies for new equipment and initiating the construction of storage and transportation facilities, these initiatives have been constrained in their reach and effectiveness, and their implementation has been further hampered by the severe economic crisis that began in October 2019. The crisis, considered one of the world’s worst economic downturns in the last 150 years, has severely impacted the government’s ability to continue supporting the agriculture sector. Rising food prices, exacerbated by the economic crisis and the heavy reliance on imported goods, pose additional challenges in meeting the nutritional needs of the Lebanese people.

Serious efforts must be undertaken to realize the potential of the agricultural sector and ensure sustainable agriculture that aims to meet food production needs while preserving the environment and ensuring the well-being of future generations. In the context of Lebanon’s agricultural sector, the integration of genetically modified (GM) technology seems crucial. GM technology has emerged as a significant scientific breakthrough, offering viable solutions to numerous challenges encountered by farmers worldwide. By incorporating specific genes into crops, or removing unwanted ones, scientists can enhance desirable traits, such as resistance to pests and diseases, tolerance to environmental stresses, and increased nutritional value, thereby enhancing food quality and combating malnutrition. This creative solution, which has proven successful in many countries [1,2,3,4], can contribute to sustainable agricultural practices and act as a catalyst for poverty reduction in Lebanon.

The objective of this paper is to examine the potential impact of GMOs on poverty reduction and agricultural development in Lebanon. Specifically, it aims to assess the benefits of GMO adoption in terms of enhancing food security, stimulating economic growth, and alleviating poverty, taking into consideration the country’s ongoing economic crisis. Due to the limited availability of comprehensive data on the entire agricultural sector in Lebanon, the focus of this study is on conducting a field investigation within the apple agriculture sector in the Sannine–Baskinta area, known for its productivity. This research endeavor will mark the first of its kind in Lebanon, contributing to the existing knowledge base and setting the stage for future investigations that strive for sustainable development and improved quality of life for the population. By integrating genetically modified technology in this context, we aim to not only address immediate agricultural challenges but also pave the way for a more sustainable and resilient agricultural future for Lebanon.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a comprehensive overview of GMOs, emphasizing benefits and addressing safety concerns, backed by scientific evidence. It also critically examines the controversies. Section 3 analyzes Lebanon’s current agricultural state, highlighting sector challenges. Section 4 discusses the development of poverty and its increase since the surge of the economic crisis, along with its distribution in Lebanon. Section 5 investigates the adoption of GMO’s potential impact on poverty reduction in the Sannine–Baskinta area, utilizing tailored simulations for the apple sector. This section details methodology, data analysis, and simulation results, discussing their implications on poverty rates. Section 6 critically assesses the study outcomes and implications, while Section 7 concludes by emphasizing potential benefits and offering recommendations for stakeholders, policymakers, and researchers.

2. Review of the Literature

Early hunter–gatherer societies in West Asia made a pivotal observation that shifted their reliance from daily foraging in forests to cultivating food plants in their immediate environment. Through this transition, farmers began to recognize that specific plants displayed superior growth characteristics in comparison to others. Furthermore, they noted that by growing different plants in proximity and facilitating cross-pollination, novel varieties emerged, often surpassing the qualities of their predecessors [5]. This significant process laid the foundation for the origins of plant genetic modification [6].

In 1974, Marc Van Montagu and Jeff Schell, and independently Mary-Dell Chilton, made a groundbreaking discovery regarding Agrobacterium tumefaciens, demonstrating its capacity to transfer a small DNA fragment, called a Ti plasmid, into plants [7]. This seminal work laid the ground for the development of genetically modified (GM) plants as we recognize them today [8]. Building upon these findings, significant progress was made, and by 1988, the successful insertion of genes into soybeans was achieved, leading to the emergence of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, which currently reign as one of the foremost genetically engineered crops worldwide [9].

Today’s GMOs are the product of genetic engineering techniques used in the laboratory that emulate the natural process by which Agrobacterium tumefaciens transfers genes into host plants. The process allows one or more specific genes to be introduced using standard recombinant DNA techniques to insert them first into the Ti plasmid, which is then transferred to a host plant. While the method has been widely used and is quite successful, the location of the transferred gene in the host plant is often random and not ideal. More recently, better techniques using CRISPR editing can be used to direct the new gene(s) into specific and desired locations in the plant genome. This degree of precision is extremely useful and lends itself to very safe modification of the host plant’s genome. In this way, new genetic traits can be introduced very precisely into plants. In addition, specific unwanted genes can be deleted or accurately modified using CRISPR techniques. In the future, we can anticipate that even better methods will be developed as biotechnology continues to improve.

An important aspect of the new GM methods is that they are much faster than the traditional breeding techniques, which involve crossing a plant containing a desired trait, such as pest resistance, with a plant that is already used as a staple for agricultural purposes. After the cross, 50% of the genes come from each parent plant and are present within the hybrids produced. These hybrids then need to be individually checked for the presence of the newly introduced trait. Useful hybrids are then crossed back into the original crop plant, selecting only those that have acquired the desired trait. Multiple generations are required of backcrossing and testing before a final useful hybrid plant is obtained [10]. While the plants produced in this way always contain the desired trait, they also contain many unknown genes that may later lead to problems. Often 10–20 years of backcrossing and testing are needed before a useful new plant is obtained. This is both a slow process and very expensive. GMO approaches are considerably better in that they are fast and precise. We know exactly which genes are inserted into the host and where they are located.

The problems inherent with traditional plant breeding methods, which constitute a “so-called natural” form of genetic modification, are often overlooked by critics of GMOs. However, these traditional methods have proven insufficient in achieving the desired improvements in crop productivity and ensuring consumer safety. In contrast, GM methods allow for precise control and monitoring of gene transfer. The insertion of a single gene into a different plant can be tracked and studied to determine its specific location and impact on gene transcription. GM technology provides a promising tool for enhancing crop productivity and improving food quality [11]. Moreover, it has the potential to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture by decreasing the use of pesticides, conserving fossil fuels, lowering CO₂ emissions, and preserving soil and moisture [12]. Additionally, GM crops offer valuable solutions to the global challenges of food and nutrition security, particularly in developing countries, with reduced risks compared to traditional breeding methods [13].

While the utilization of GMOS in agriculture has faced criticism from certain politicians, philosophical thinkers, and opinion influencers in the West and Northern Hemisphere, none of these criticisms, particularly regarding the alleged “food safety risks” and “genetic contamination” associated with GM crops, have been substantiated by scientists and agricultural experts. The indictment presented by Gary Comstock twenty-three years ago [14] primarily presents general and highly debatable ethical considerations lacking conclusive evidence regarding the biological hazards of GM technology. Extensive scientific research has refuted claims of the unsafety of GMO food [15,16,17]. These assertions lack scientific substantiation and fail to withstand scrutiny. Numerous peer-reviewed articles have effectively debunked these criticisms, exposing them as irrational attitudes rooted in mythology [18] and reflecting a politically biased stance [19] lacking scientific foundation and posing significant moral risks. Such an attitude contradicts the interests of populations in the Global South concerning development [20], food security, and poverty reduction [21,22]. The overwhelming consensus among numerous esteemed national academies and prestigious scientific organizations strongly supports the safety and benefits of GMOs [23]. The Royal Society in London, followed by the U.S. National Research Council (NRC), U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), American Medical Association (AMA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), American Society for Plant Biology (ASPB), World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Brazilian National Academy of Science, Chinese National Academy of Science, Indian National Academy of Science, Mexican Academy of Science, and the Third World Academy of Sciences have all expressed positive stances on GMOs [5].

However, one of the most compelling studies [22] reveals the alarming repercussions of Europe’s firm opposition to GMOs, which holds significant implications globally. While there has always been a diversity of views, the consistent green-party disinformation campaign may finally be showing signs of crumbling. One critical issue, though, concerns vitamin A deficiency intake during childhood, which can lead to severe health complications. Tragically, as many as half a million children annually are estimated to lose their sight by the age of one due to this deficiency, while millions more endure various developmental issues. However, these voiceless children often go unnoticed, both in terms of the lives lost and the enduring hardships faced by survivors, especially those growing up in impoverished conditions [5].

The scientists Ingo Potrykus, at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, and Peter Beyer, at the University of Freiburg, identified rice as a staple food for many developing countries, including the Philippines, where a large portion of the population relies on it. They introduced genes for β-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, into the grain. While rice naturally produces β-carotene, it predominantly accumulates in the stalks and roots rather than the edible part of the plant. Traditional breeding methods failed to transfer the desired trait, demonstrating the limitations of conventional approaches. The scientists employed genetic modification to create Golden Rice. The development of Golden Rice began in 1999, and by 2002, it was ready for commercial production. However, due to its GMO status, it faced stringent regulations. The European regulations have undeniably hindered the progress and implementation of this life-saving innovation. Sadly, even more obstacles emerged, such as protests organized by green parties in Norway, leading to the destruction of Golden Rice fields in the Philippines. Other loci of “green opposition” include Zimbabwe, Malaysia, India, Thailand, etc., mostly funded by Greenpeace International. The consequences of this misinformation campaign are dire, with over 15 million children since 2002 suffering or losing their lives due to vitamin A deficiency. This raises a profound ethical question: How many children must endure such preventable suffering before leaders of the anti-GMO movement can be accused of a crime against humanity? [5].

On the other hand, the misconception that GMOs necessitate increased pesticide use arises from a misrepresentation of facts. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, effectively eliminates unwanted vegetation but does not pose significant danger [24,25,26]. Importantly, it is safer for human consumption than table salt, ibuprofen, chocolate, and alcohol. There is no substantiated evidence of associated risks even when one chooses to consume undiluted glyphosate, which is clearly not a recommended practice. Furthermore, the alternative herbicides that farmers were using previously are far more dangerous.

An illustrative case refuting the pesticide myth can be observed in India and China’s cotton industries. Before the introduction of genetically modified BT cotton, traditional cotton varieties required the use of 5750 metric tons of pesticides in 2001. However, with the adoption of BT cotton, pesticide usage significantly decreased to a little over 200 metric tons in 2013 [5]. Notably, this reduction in pesticide usage coincided with a nearly doubled yield. This compelling evidence demonstrates that GMOs can lead to a substantial decrease in pesticide reliance and increased agricultural productivity, ultimately enabling the utilization of more land for food production.

Recent advancements in scientific knowledge and technological capabilities have made the production of GM crops more accessible and cost-effective. While the actual cost of producing a GM crop is generally less than that for traditional crops, the final cost has historically been significantly higher, due to the extensive costs of complying with regulations. Unfortunately, this often limits their production primarily to large-scale agribusinesses. Nevertheless, most GM seeds around the world end up being planted by smallholders and subsistence farmers, as evidenced in Annual Reports from the ISAAA. This cost disparity has been a concern in various regions. However, these recent advancements are further enhancing the accessibility and cost-effectiveness of GM crop production, as illustrated in

Table 1. Impact of GMO Implementation on Agriculture Production in Selected Countries.

Country	Genetically Modified Plants	Impact on Agriculture Production
South Africa	Maize, Soybeans, Cotton	Increased crop yields, improved pest resistance, reduced pesticide use [27]
Burkina Faso	Cotton	Increased cotton production, reduced pesticide use [28]
Egypt	Cotton, Maize	Increased cotton and maize yields, reduced losses, reduced pesticide use [27]
Sudan	Cotton	Improved cotton quality, reduced bollworm infestation [29]
Nigeria	Cowpea, Cotton	Increased cowpea and cotton yields, reduced insect damage [30]
China	Cotton, Papaya, Tomato, Rice, Maize	Increased crop productivity, reduced pesticide use [31]
Bangladesh	Brinjal	Increased crop yields, improved pest resistance [32]
India	Cotton, Mustard	Increased crop yields, improved pest resistance [33]
Philippines	Maize, Soybeans, Cotton, Papaya	Increased crop yields, reduced pest and disease damage [34]
Vietnam	Maize, Soybeans, Cotton, Papaya	Increased crop productivity, improved disease resistance, reduced pesticide use [35]
Indonesia	Maize, Soybeans, Cotton, Papaya	Increased crop yields, reduced pest damage [36]
Pakistan	Cotton, Corn	Increased cotton and corn production, improved pest resistance [37]
Spain	Maize	Increased maize yields, reduced losses, reduced pesticide use [38]
Portugal	Maize	Increased maize productivity, improved pest resistance [38]
Czech Republic	Maize	Increased maize yields, reduced fungal infections, reduced pesticide use [32]
Romania	Maize	Increased maize yields, improved pest resistance [39]
United States	Maize, Soybeans, Cotton, Canola, Papaya, Sugar Beet, Apples	Increased crop yields, improved pest and weed control [31,40]
Canada	Canola, Maize, Soybeans, Sugar Beet	Increased crop productivity, reduced pest damage [41]
Brazil	Soybeans, Maize, Cotton	Increased crop yields, reduced losses, reduced pesticide use [42]
Argentina	Soybeans, Maize, Cotton	Increased crop productivity, improved pest resistance [43]
Paraguay	Soybeans, Maize, Cotton	Increased crop yields, reduced insect damage, reduced pesticide use [32]

Source: Authors’ own data collection.

.

3. The State of Agriculture in Lebanon: Issues and Challenges

Lebanon’s agriculture embodies a spirit of perseverance and a deep-rooted connection to the land. Its agricultural landscape presents vast tracts of fertile land, characterized by sloping hills and verdant valleys. Lebanon possesses the largest proportion of agricultural land in the Middle East, accounting for 64% of its total land area as of 2017 [44]. With a total land area of approximately 10,452 square kilometers, arable land constitutes around 16% of Lebanon’s territory [44]. The agricultural sector encompasses diverse regions, including the Bekaa Valley, Mount Lebanon, North, and South Lebanon. This substantial expanse of land serves as a crucial foundation for Lebanon’s agricultural operations, enabling farmers to harness its fertility and thereby contributing to the nation’s agricultural productivity. Historically, Lebanon has been renowned for its rich agricultural lands, with farming playing a pivotal role in the country’s economy. The sector serves as a significant source of employment, providing livelihoods for over 900,000 individuals (compared to a total population of 4,500,000 Lebanese citizens and 2,000,000 displaced Syrian and Palestinian refugees). Agriculture contributes around 5% of Lebanon’s GDP and involves around 8% of the effective labor force, highlighting its importance as a sector that drives economic growth and sustains rural communities.

Lebanon enjoys a moderate climate, making it conducive to cultivating a diverse range of crops typically suited for both cold and tropical regions. The country boasts an array of over 60 crop types. Additionally, Lebanon stands out with the highest precipitation rate compared to its neighboring countries, receiving an average annual rainfall depth of 661 mm.

Although the rural population constitutes only 12% of the total population, it tends to be relatively poorer compared to the rest of the population. Within this context, around 20 to 25% of the active population, including seasonal family labor, is involved in agriculture either on a full-time or part-time basis. In certain economically disadvantaged regions like Akkar, Dinnyeh, Northern Bekaa, and South Lebanon, agriculture-related activities contribute up to 80 percent of the local GDP. The agricultural landscape of Lebanon is characterized by an intricate network of small family-owned farms, each spanning an average size of approximately 3.5 hectares.

Lebanon’s main agricultural products can be broadly categorized into five factions, as depicted in

Table 2. Lebanon’s Main Agricultural Products in 2019.

Category	Total Production (in Tons)	Top Produces	Total Exports (in USD Million)	Top Exports
Vegetables	1,340,443	Potatoes, Tomatoes, Cucumbers, and Gherkins	41.1	Potatoes, Lettuce, Dried Leguminous Vegetables
Fruits and Nuts	816,800	Oranges, Apples, Lemons, and Limes	77.8	Grapes, Bananas, Apples
Live Animals and Animal Products	410,155	Milk (fresh cow), Chicken, Cow Meat	16.1	Live Sheep and Goats; Guts, Bladders and Stomachs of Animals, Meat and Edible Offal
Unmanufactured Tobacco	8694		29.6
Cereals	170,737	Wheat, Barley, Maize	18.1	Flour, Meal, Powder, Flakes, Granules, and Pellets; Rice, Wheat, and Meslin, Cereal for Goats
Total of Top Agricultural Products			182.7

Source: [44].

. Firstly, there are vegetables, showcasing the diverse range of crops grown for consumption. Secondly, fruits and nuts highlight the abundance of orchards and the variety of produce available. The third faction comprises live animals and animal products, reflecting the country’s livestock industry and the related dairy and meat products. Additionally, Lebanon produces unmanufactured tobacco as part of its agricultural output. Cereals, including cereal seeds, form another significant sector, representing staple crops like wheat, barley, and corn. Lastly, the agricultural sector in Lebanon contributes to the production of coffee, tea, maté, and spices, reflecting the cultivation of specialty crops that add more variety to the local cuisine and beverage industry.

The top agricultural products encompass potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, wheat, oranges, apples, olives, lemons, limes, and unmanufactured tobacco. These commodities collectively constitute nearly 95% of the aggregate agricultural exports, which surged to USD 193.1 million in 2019.

In recent years, crop production has faced various challenges that have seriously threatened its sustainability. Despite having the highest proportion of arable land in the Arab world, exceeding 175,000 hectares, Lebanon’s agricultural sector has long suffered from underfunding and underdevelopment. Many farmers struggle to access the capital they need to purchase equipment, seeds, and other inputs. This has led to a decline in productivity and a decrease in the quality of crops. Additionally, many young people are leaving rural areas to seek employment in urban centers, which has led to a shortage of skilled labor in the agricultural sector.

Another challenge facing Lebanese agriculture is that despite Lebanon receiving the highest rainfall levels in the region, the absence of crucial dams and poor water management continue to contribute to water scarcity, preventing the effective utilization of surplus rainwater for irrigation and various other essential purposes [45]. This situation has been further compounded by a deficiency of modern equipment and inefficient production techniques. In addition, as fuel subsidies ended in 2022, substantial hikes in food prices were witnessed due to the fact that farmers heavily rely on significant quantities of fuel to power their machinery and transport their products to the market.

In the current scenario, Lebanese farmers are facing immense challenges in covering their operating costs, while the government remains mired in a state of stagnation. Hampered by persistent political and economic challenges, the government finds itself in a state of inertia, impeding its ability to effectively support and invest in the agricultural sector [46]. Consequently, it is crucial to address the rapid socioeconomic decline that is taking place. Given that a majority of the population operates on small plots of land, there is an urgent need for high-yielding crops that can thrive in limited space. Farmers require effective strategies to mitigate the impact of these challenges. GM technology offers a potential avenue for improving crops and meeting these demands.

4. The Poverty Rate in Lebanon

The ESCWA report [47] reveals a significant increase in poverty rates in Lebanon. The headcount poverty rate surged from 28% in 2019 to 55% in 2020, highlighting the growing number of individuals living in poverty. Moreover, the multidimensional poverty rate, defined as a household experiencing one or more aspects of deprivation, experienced a staggering rise, soaring from 42% in 2019 to a concerning 82% in 2021, as indicated by the report. The poverty line serves as a benchmark, representing the minimum income required to buy essential needs such as food, shelter, healthcare, and education. However, the income of these impoverished individuals falls short, particularly in covering their basic food requirements. This predicament is primarily attributed to a decline in economic activity and substantial political unrest, which has further strained the Lebanese Pound exchange rate, resulting in significant currency depreciation and a substantial erosion of consumer purchasing power. Consequently, both Lebanese and non-Lebanese populations have witnessed a decline in their living standards.

Table 3. Multidimensional Poverty by Governorate.

Governorate	Number of Households	%
Beirut	63,000	73%
Mount Lebanon	382,000	75%
North Lebanon	137,000	85%
Akkar	76,000	92%
Bekaa	69,000	91%
Baalbek–Hermel	57,000	92%
South Lebanon	128,000	87%
Nabatieh	88,000	92%

Source: ESCWA Report 2021.

depicts the percentage and number of households suffering from multidimensional poverty by the governorate.

Urgent action is imperative to address the pervasive issue of multidimensional poverty in Lebanon. To tackle this challenge, several measures need to be implemented, including enhancing food security [48], promoting improved nutrition, and adopting sustainable agricultural practices [49]. One potential solution that can be integrated into the new agricultural equation in Lebanon is the application of GM technology.

5. Materials and Methods

The implementation of GMOs in Lebanon is a pressing matter, driven by the critical need to address the food scarcity and malnutrition prevalent in rural areas. While regions like the US and Europe do not suffer from food shortages, the situation is markedly different in nations like Lebanon. Many areas in Lebanon often grapple with insufficient food access, particularly among young children, leading to inadequate nutrition. Recognizing this dire circumstance, it becomes imperative to explore innovative solutions that can enhance crop productivity and nutritional value. The utilization of GMO techniques and precision methods holds great promise in improving crop yields precisely where it is most needed.

We present here a simulation to examine the potential impact of implementing GMOs in Lebanon on reducing poverty.

5.1. The Sample

We have chosen to conduct the study within the apple agriculture sector located in the Sannine–Baskinta area of Mount Lebanon. The village of Baskinta, located at an altitude ranging from 1250 m to approximately 1800 m above sea level, holds the distinction of being one of the highest villages in Lebanon. It is situated 43 km northeast of the capital city, Beirut. This specific region has been chosen for its renowned reputation for active and well-established apple cultivation, making it an ideal and contextually relevant area for our research objectives.

Our dataset comprises comprehensive information obtained from the majority (95%, 38 individuals) of apple farmers operating within this specific area, ensuring that our sample is representative and offers a diverse range of perspectives.

To collect the necessary data, we conducted individual visits to farmers from June to August 2023, engaging in face-to-face interviews. These interviews were personally conducted by one of the paper’s authors, with assistance from one of the most influential and prominent farmers in terms of ownership, who facilitated the appointments and interactions. Our face-to-face interviews provided a detailed insight into various aspects of farming, starting with demographic details such as age, gender, and education level. These foundational insights established a framework for understanding the farmers’ unique agricultural approaches, encompassing their chosen crops, employed technology, and farming practices. Additionally, information about land ownership and water access provided vital context about the available resources. The interviews captured specifics about input usage, including capital, number of workers, seed varieties, fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation methods. Yield data provided tangible measures of productivity. Challenges ranging from pest management to market access were identified, along with the strategies employed to overcome them. Financial aspects, such as marketing techniques, income sources, and expenditures related to their activities, were also recorded. Moreover, the interviews uncovered sustainability efforts and environmental conservation initiatives. Through these conversations, we gained access to the farmers’ perspectives, their attitudes toward new technologies, and their feedback on existing policies and programs.

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics.

	Age	Annual Revenue in USD	Capital in USD	Land Surface (Acres)	Number of Workers
Mean	46	7142	7342	0.733	2.63
Median	46	7142	7342	0.72	3.00
Maximum	70	9000	12,000	1.5	4.00
Minimum	26	5000	3000	0.4	1.00
Std. Dev.	11	994	2043	0.15	0.98

presents the descriptive statistics of the sample, which consists of 92% males and 8% females.

5.2. The Simulation Model

Lebanon lacks specific regulations governing the use or cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), resulting in a dearth of data concerning GMO use in the agricultural sector of the country. Consequently, our study employs a set of meticulously gathered and designed variables to serve as a scientific proxy, enabling an examination of the potential impact that GMOs could have on poverty reduction in Lebanon.

We employ the widely recognized Cobb–Douglas production function (Equation (1)), which serves as a valuable tool [50] in comprehending the intricate relationship between resource allocation, efficiency, and economic growth. This function proves instrumental in gauging the relative significance and contributions of labor and capital in the production process, facilitating an evaluation of the factors that influence productivity and technological progress. We augment this function by incorporating the variable of GMOs.

$$Y\left(Ld, GMO, Lb, K\right)=AL{d}^{\alpha }GM{O}^{\beta }L{b}^{\gamma }{K}^{\delta }$$

(1)

In this equation:

$Y$ represents the apple crop yields in terms of monetary value (in USD).

$GMO$ denotes the level of GMO adoption, measured on a scale ranging from 0 to 100.

$\mathrm{Land}, Ld,$ refers to the land area utilized for apple cultivation (in acres).

Labor, $Lb$, represents the labor input, quantified by the number of workers involved.

Capital, $K,$ denotes the capital input required for apple cultivation (in USD).

$A$ represents the total factor productivity (TFP), which represents other factors that affect apple productivity.

The coefficients α, β, γ, and δ denote the elasticities of the inputs—Land, GMOs, Labor, and Capital, respectively. These elasticities indicate the responsiveness of output to changes in the corresponding inputs. To estimate the values of the elasticities, we adopt the values found by Naimy et al. (2008) for α, γ, and δ in their study conducted on apple cultivation in the Sannine region [51]. For the β coefficient, we assign a value of 0.5 based on the research conducted by Qaim and Zilberman (2003) [52] on the yield elasticity of genetically modified cotton (0.4) and the study by Krishna and Qaim (2012) [53] on the income elasticity of demand for genetically modified maize (which was found to be close to 0.7). In our study, we conducted simulations considering three hypothetical adoption rates of GM technologies in the apple cultivation of the Sannine region. These adoption rates were set at 40%, 50%, and 70%. This implies that within the Sannine region, 40%, 50%, and 70% of apple farmers have embraced GM technologies in their cultivation practices.

6. Simulation Results

Based on our collected dataset, the average values for the sample per individual were derived as follows: an average land area of 0.74 acres, employing three workers, capital investment amounting to USD 7000, and a total factor productivity (TFP) efficiency index of 700. The simulation results are presented in

Table 5. Simulation Output in Apple Crop Yields.

GMOs Adoption Rate	40%	50%	70%
% Change	20%	7%	11%

. These percentages represent the changes from one GMO adoption rate to another. A 40% GMO adoption rate boosts the yield by 20%. With an additional 10% adoption (resulting in a 50% GMO adoption rate), the increase is 7%. When the adoption rate is further increased to 70%, the additional yield increase is 11%.

The utilization of the aforementioned percentages serves the purpose of evaluating the potential impact of GMO adoption on poverty reduction within the apple agriculture sector of the Sannine region. In line with the estimated headcount poverty rate of 55% by ESCWA [47], and considering the simulation outputs depicted in

Table 6. Estimated Poverty Reduction Rates.

GMOs Adoption Rate	0%	40%	50%	70%
New Poverty Rate	55%	44%	41%	36%
% Change in Poverty Rate		−20%	−26%	−34%

, we proceeded to calculate the potential reduction in the poverty rate associated with different GMO adoption rates. To estimate the poverty reduction rates, we multiplied the current poverty rate by one minus the corresponding change in crop yield. Through this calculation, we derived the new poverty rates and the percentage change in poverty rates for each GMO adoption rate utilized, specifically 40%, 50%, and 70%. These poverty rates and percentage changes are presented in Table 6.

Our research findings present evidence suggesting that the combination of GMO adoption, land area, labor, and capital investment exerts a significant influence on the productivity of apple crops in the Sannine region. The observed increase in apple crop yields provides valuable insights for stakeholders in the apple agriculture sector, indicating the potential benefits that can be derived from optimizing these factors to enhance overall agricultural performance and productivity. Furthermore, our study contributes to the existing scientific literature by providing insights into the potential benefits of GMO adoption in terms of reducing poverty rates in the apple agriculture sector. Our results indicate that the poverty rate decreases from the counterfactual rate of 55% to 36% with a simulated GMO adoption rate of 70%.

7. Discussion

It is important to note that there is a severe lack of up-to-date and comprehensive data on the agriculture sector in Lebanon. The most recent report published by the Lebanese Ministry of Agriculture dates back to 2010, and international institutions often provide limited statistics on agriculture, focusing on gross numbers with no details whatsoever. Therefore, this paper takes a pioneering approach by collecting relevant data specifically related to one of Lebanon’s significant apple-producing regions, Sannine–Baskinta. Through our simulation, we found that the adoption of GM technologies has the potential to significantly reduce poverty rates. This finding serves as a crucial indicator for policymakers in Lebanon to consider.

We employed the Cobb–Douglas production function, acknowledging its limitations in fully capturing a country’s productive capabilities and supply-side efficiencies. Nonetheless, it proves to be a robust tool, particularly when applied solely to apple production, thereby mitigating issues related to simultaneous equation bias. The model’s attractive mathematical characteristics, such as diminishing marginal returns and constant optimal expenditure shares on input factors, led us to select it for our analysis. Our model was built upon the actions of individual farmers, without imposing a specific functional form on the entire Lebanese economy. As a result, our simulation serves as a proxy to demonstrate the potential of GMOs in revolutionizing agriculture.

The fear expressed by farmers in our selected sample regarding weather conditions that can potentially destroy their entire crops, combined with their heavy reliance on expensive chemical pesticides and fertilizers, highlights the challenges they face in sustaining their agricultural activities. None of the interviewed farmers was aware of the existence of GMOs. This necessitates the implementation of strategies aimed at educating the public about the benefits associated with GMOs. Such efforts can also play a crucial role in dispelling myths and misconceptions, fostering informed decision-making based on factual information. While Lebanon does not have comprehensive legislation specifically dedicated to GMOs, the country has adhered to certain international agreements and guidelines concerning biosafety and genetically modified organisms [54]. For instance, Lebanon is a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international treaty designed to ensure the safe handling, transport, and use of living modified organisms.

It is essential to recognize the collective position of scientific societies and prioritize evidence-based decision-making in addressing the current challenges in Lebanon. The scientific consensus on the safety and potential benefits of GMOs in enhancing crop yield, nutrient content, post-harvest loss management, resilience to extreme weather conditions, and resistance to pests and diseases should guide policymaking and shape the public perception. The case of Golden Rice, among others, serves as a testament to the immense potential of genetic modification in improving nutritional outcomes and alleviating the burden of preventable diseases, ultimately saving numerous lives worldwide.

This study represents a crucial foundational step toward the introduction of genetically modified crops in Lebanese agriculture, aimed at rural development, poverty reduction, and enhanced food security, all within the framework of sustainable practices. By prioritizing the careful integration of GMOs alongside established eco-friendly farming techniques, we aim to ensure a balanced approach that safeguards the environment while meeting the growing demands of a burgeoning population.

8. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study highlights the challenges faced by farmers in sustaining agricultural activities, emphasizing the imperative need for public education strategies to dispel myths and promote informed decision-making regarding GMOs. Utilizing the Cobb–Douglas production function as an analytical tool, albeit with acknowledged limitations, provided a suitable framework for our apple production-focused analysis, demonstrating the transformative potential of GMOs in agriculture.

Serving as a pilot project, this paper focuses on the Sannine–Baskinta region. Here, the identification of suitable GMOs for apple cultivation, guided by farmer feedback, lays the foundation for implementation and testing. Future research directions include assessing the efficiency of GMOs in enhancing resistance against weather conditions, reducing pesticide usage, eliminating reliance on chemical fertilizers, and potentially enhancing the nutritional value of GM fruits. Drawing inspiration from GM apples in the US [55], which exhibit resistance to browning, future investigations will assess the biotechnological feasibility of these modifications in both foreign and local laboratories, alongside evaluating economic and financial considerations.

Expanding the scope to include other crops like tomatoes and potatoes, future research endeavors aim to gradually extend this project beyond the Sannine–Baskinta region, encompassing diverse regions and farms throughout Lebanon and eventually reaching other Arab countries. The ultimate goal is to contribute to global agricultural improvement, fostering sustainability and addressing food security challenges. Despite the acknowledged limitations of this study, such as its reliance on a simulation model and the challenges posed by limited recent agricultural data, this work lays the ground for future advancements in integrating GMOs into Lebanese agriculture. We hope that the future implementation of the ideas expressed in this paper will exemplify the role of incorporating GM technology in alleviating poverty and encourage other nations to follow suit.