The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
(ISAAA) will soon release its annual status report on global adoption of
agricultural biotechnology traits. It is to be expected that the report
will confirm trends from other national sources that show yet another
significant annual increase in the rate of global plantings of biotech
trait crops, providing clear evidence that this green technology is
popular with millions of farmers because it continues to deliver important
economic, environmental and health benefits.
At the same time, Friends of the Earth (FOE) will release a report Who
Benefits from GM Crops? The Rise in Pesticide Use, that makes a series
of inaccurate and incorrect claims about the global impact of GM
technology.
As authors of a number of peer reviewed published reports and papers on
the impact of agricultural biotechnology, PG Economics provides below a
summary of key real impacts of the technology and comments on the main
claims made by the FOE report.
The
real impact of GM crop technology
1.
Peer reviewed research in scientific
journals consistently shows that agricultural biotechnology has delivered
substantial economic and environmental advantages. In the first ten years
of commercial use, incomes of the 10.25 million farmers using the
technology increased by over $27 billion and pesticide use is 6.9% lower
(a saving of 224 million kg of active ingredient) than it would otherwise
have been if this technology had not been used. The reductions in the use
of insecticides and herbicides, coupled with a switch to more
environmentally benign herbicides, have delivered significant net
environmental gains. Important savings in carbon dioxide emissions were
also made, equivalent to removing over 4 million cars from the roads in
2005.
2.
In 2005, the majority of both the
farm income gains (55%) and benefits from reduced pesticide use (54%) went
to farmers in developing countries. 90% of the farmers benefiting from
using the technology are small, resource-poor farmers in developing
countries like
China and India.
3.
The total cost paid by farmers to
access GM technology (seed premium) was equal to an average of only 26% of
the total farm income benefit this has been a major reason why GM
technology has been so popular at the farm level. For farmers in
developing countries the total cost was equal to only 13% of the total
farm income gains they derived, compared to 38% in developed countries.
4.
Biotech crops have also delivered a
number of other more intangible benefits to farmers. These include:
·
Herbicide tolerant crops have
facilitated a switch from a plough-based to a no/reduced tillage
production system which has helped reduce soil erosion (and cut carbon
dioxide emissions)
·
Insect resistant crops have resulted
in improved quality of food (eg, less cancer-causing mycotoxins in corn)
and reduced exposure to insecticides for many farm workers in developing
countries where use of protective equipment has traditionally been limited
·
Shortening the growing season
allowing some farmers to plant a second crop in the same season (eg, maize
following cotton in
India,
soybeans following wheat in
South America).
Inaccurate and incorrect claims by FOE
1.
The FOE report makes numerous
inaccurate and incorrect claims. Information sources cited are not based
on peer reviewed scientific journals/research, are not representative of
actual impacts, are often based on inappropriate assumptions and use of
official (eg, USDA pesticide usage) statistical data and show poor
understanding of agronomic and socio-economic issues. Much of the
material drawn on is also out of date.
2.
Pesticide use has not
increased as a result of the adoption of biotech crops it has fallen
significantly relative to levels of use that would have occurred without
using biotechnology. More importantly there have been significant
environmental gains associated with this reduction in pesticide usage and
switches to use of more environmentally benign herbicides see for
example Brookes & Barfoot (2007) GM crops: the first ten years global
socio-economic and environmental impacts in Agbioforum 9 (3) on
www.agbioforum.org.
3.
GM crops have made important
contributions to alleviating hunger and poverty in developing countries.
The majority of the farm income gains from using the technology have gone
to small farmers in developing countries directly improving their
standards of living and family level disposable income
4.
GM herbicide tolerant (GM HT)
technology has mainly delivered farm income benefits from lower costs of
production. Yield impacts have generally been neutral and yield
improvement has not been a specific target of the technology
nevertheless, in some countries positive yield effects have occurred, eg,
GM HT soybeans in
Romania and Mexico.
5.
GM insect resistant (GM IR)
technology has delivered important farm income benefits mainly from higher
yields, especially in developing countries. In developed countries gains
from this technology have tended to more associated with lowering costs of
production (reduced use of insecticides) and less prominent (but still
positive) yield gains
6.
Farmers are not being
subjected to limited seed choice and high prices. The rapid adoption of
GM technology reflects the significant benefits derived from using the
technology relative to the additional costs paid for the technology (see
Brookes & Barfoot referred to above). If the technology failed to deliver
benefits, farmers would not use the technology. There remains plenty of
choice in seed markets and the dominance of seeds containing biotech
traits in some countries reflects market demand at the farm level. If
competition is perceived to be limited in any seed market this is an issue
for competition policy not technology approval legislation.
7.
There is a growing and substantial
body of objective and representative evidence assessing the impact of
biotech crops published in peer reviewed journals. The findings
consistently show that on average there have been important economic and
environmental benefits associated with use of the technology. None of
these have been used or cited by FOE for those wishing to read further,
look for example, at the references in Brookes & Barfoot (2007) referred
above.
8.
There has not been a steep
rise in the development of weed resistance to glyphosate as a result of
the adoption and use of herbicide tolerant crops. All weeds have the
ability to develop resistance to all herbicides and there are hundreds of
resistant weed species confirmed in the International Survey of Herbicide
Resistant Weeds (www.weedscience.org).
Reports of herbicide resistant weeds pre-date the use of GM herbicide
tolerant crops by decades. Currently, there are 13 weed species that are
resistant to glyphosate, compared to over 90 resistant to
ALS herbicides, or over 60 weed species resistant to triazine herbicides
such as atrazine. Several of the confirmed glyphosate resistant weed
species have been found in areas where no GM herbicide tolerant crops have
been grown. Control of glyphosate resistant weeds is achieved the same
way as other herbicide resistant weeds, via the use of other herbicides in
mixtures or sequences.
For
additional information: contact Graham Brookes on 00 44 1531 650123 or
graham.brookes@btinternet.com
Key
reference material: GM crops: the first ten years global socio-economic
and environmental impacts (2007) in Agbioforum 9 (3) on
www.agbioforum.org
or
www.pgeconomics.co.uk
OPEN PDF VERSION
