Biotech crops have provided economic and environmental benefits, and positive contributions to global food production and food security for the 14 years they were adopted, a recent report by UK-based PG Economics said.

“Biotech-crop adoption continues to contribute to reducing the release of greenhouse-gas [GHG] emissions from agriculture, decreasing pesticide spraying and significantly boosting farmers’ incomes, especially in developing countries” said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics and coauthor of the report with Peter Barfoot. “The technology has also made important contributions to increasing crop yields, reducing risks, improving productivity and raising global production of key crops,” such as soybeans, corn, canola and cotton.

The report, with the title “GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2009,” focused on the farm- level economic effects, the production effects, the environmental impact resulting from changes in the use of insecticides and herbicides, and the contribution toward reducing GHG emissions.

Increase in farm income
“Biotechnology has, to date, delivered several specific agronomic traits that have overcome a number of production constraints for many farmers. This has resulted in improved productivity and profitability for the 14 million adopting farmers who have applied the technology, to 129-million hectares in 2009,”

It said that biotech crops have provided substantial net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $10.8 billion in 2009 and $64.7 billion for the 14-year period.

“The farm-income gain in 2009 is equivalent to adding 4.1 percent to the value of global production of the four main biotech crops of soybeans, corn, canola and cotton,” the report, a copy of which was furnished to the BusinessMirror, said.

It said that of the total farm income benefit, 57 percent ($36.6 billion) has been due to yield gains, while the balance came from reductions in the cost of production. Two-thirds of the yield gain was from the adoption of insect-resistant crops and the balance from herbicide-tolerant crops.

The Brookes and Barfoot report said the share of the farm-income gains, both in 2009 and cumulatively from 1996 to 2009, has been about 50 percent each for farmers in developing and developed countries.

Since 1996, biotech traits have added significantly to the global production of soybeans and corn—83.5 million tons for soybeans and 130.5 million tons for corn. The technology has also contributed an additional 10.5 million tons of cotton lint and 5.5 million tons of canola.

The report said the largest gains in farm income were in the soybean sector, mainly from cost savings. The $2.1 billion additional income generated by genetically modified (GM) herbicide-tolerant soybeans in 2009 has been equivalent to adding 2.7 percent to the value of the crop in the biotech-growing countries, or adding the equivalent of 2.3 percent to the $87-billion value of the global soybean crop in 2009. Since 1996, the soybean-area in the leading soybean-producing countries of the US, Brazil and Argentina increased by 73 percent.

Substantial gains have also occurred in the cotton industry through a combination of higher yields and lower costs, the report noted. In 2009 cotton farm-income levels in the biotech-adopting countries increased by $3.95 billion, and since 1996, the sector has benefited from an additional $20.5 billion. The 2009 income gains are equivalent to adding 13.3 percent to the value of the cotton crop in these countries, or 12.5 percent to the $31.6-billion value of total global cotton production.

Significant increases to farm incomes have also resulted in the maize and canola sectors. The combination of GM insect-resistant and GM herbicide-tolerant technology in maize has boosted farm incomes by $16.76 billion since 1996. In the canola sector (largely in North America) an additional $2.18 billion has been generated.

In the Philippines, the report said it registered an accumulated farm income of $75 million from biotech insect-resistant corn and $32.8 million in herbicide-tolerant corn, or a total of $107.8 million during the period of 1996 to 2009. In 2009, the net farm income at the national level in the Philippines was equal to plus $10.9 million. The total number of hectarage planted to GM corn in the Philippines is 279,000 in 2009, the report said.

Brookes and Barfoot said if GM crop technology had not been available to the 14 million farmers using the technology in 2009, maintaining global production levels at the 2009 levels would have required additional plantings of 3.8-million hectares of soybeans, 5.6-million hectares of corn, 2.6 million hectares of cotton and 0.3 million-hectares of canola. This total area requirement is equivalent to about 7 percent of the arable land in the US, or 24 percent of the arable land in Brazil.

Farmers’ reasons for use of GM crops
The study said there are many reasons that influenced the farmers in using GM crops. In using herbicide-resistant crops, the reasons include increased management flexibility and convenience because of a combination of the ease of use associated with broad-spectrum, postemergent herbicides like glyphosate and the increased/longer time window for spraying.

“This not only frees up management time for other farming activities but also allows additional scope for undertaking off-farm, income-earning activities,” the report said.

Another reason is that it facilitates the adoption of conservation or no tillage systems. This provides for additional cost savings, such as reduced labor and fuel costs associated with ploughing, additional moisture retention and reductions in levels of soil erosion.

For insect-resistant crops, among the reasons for using them was production risk-management/insurance purposes, wherein the technology takes away much of the worry of significant pest damage occurring.

Other reasons cited are the “convenience” benefit from having to devote less time to applying insecticides; savings in energy use, which is mainly associated with less use of aerial spraying and less tillage; savings in machinery use (for spraying and possibly reduced harvesting times); higher quality of crop; and shorter growing season.

An important reason mentioned was “improved health and safety for farmers and farm workers” owing to reduced handling and use of pesticides, especially in developing countries where many apply pesticides with little or no use of protective clothing and equipment.

Brookes and Barfoot pointed out, “It is important to recognize that these largely intangible benefits are considered by many farmers as a primary reason for adoption of GM technology, and in some cases, farmers have been willing to adopt for these reasons alone, even when the measurable impacts on yield and direct costs of production suggest marginal or no direct economic gain.”

Reduced greenhouse-gas emissions
The report said biotech crops have contributed to significantly reduce the release of GHG emissions from agricultural practices. This was the result of less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with the biotech crops. In 2009 this was equivalent to removing 17.7 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—or equal to removing 7.8 million cars from the road for one year.

Biotech crops have reduced pesticide spraying by 393 million kg, which resulted in 17.1 percent decrease impact to the environment caused by herbicide and insecticide use.

The use of herbicide-tolerant biotech crops has also made important contributions to reducing soil erosion and improving soil moisture levels. This was brought by the adoption of no- or reduced-tillage production systems in many regions, especially South America.

“In absolute terms, the largest environmental gain has been associated with the adoption of GM insect-resistant cotton and reflects the significant reduction in insecticide use that the technology has allowed, in what has traditionally been, an intensive user of insecticides,” the report said.

It added that the volume of herbicides used in biotech soybean crops also decreased by 41 million kg during the 14-year period, or a 2.2 percent reduction, while the overall environmental impact associated with herbicide use on these crops decreased by a significantly larger 16 percent.

“This highlights the switch in herbicides used with most GM herbicide-tolerant crops to active ingredients with a more environmentally benign profile than the ones generally used on conventional crops,” the report said.

It said important environmental gains have also occurred in the maize and canola sectors. In maize, herbicide and insecticide use decreased by 176.7 million kg and the associated environmental impact of pesticide use on this crop area decreased, due to a combination of reduced insecticide use (34.8 percent) and a switch to more environmentally benign herbicides (10.5 percent).

In the canola sector, farmers reduced herbicide use by 14 million kg (a 16.2 percent reduction) and the associated environmental impact of herbicide use on this crop area fell by 23.2 percent due to a switch to more environmentally benign herbicides.