A Good Climate for GM-Derived Foods

Graham Brookes, agricultural economist with the UK-based analysts PG Economics would like to, as he puts it, “take issue with the stream of negative, subjective and unrepresentative views of anti-biotech organisations and provide definitive impact evidence based on robust, representative data from peer-reviewed scientific journals.” I thought it was interesting on a number of levels, especially given the heightened concerns about the global food supply and “green” issues. Plus, many of us in the United States often have the perception that food from GM sources is absolutely unwelcome in Europe. But is it? At the risk of using a hackneyed-cliché, here’s some food for thought. 

   —Lynn A. Kuntz
 
Biotech crops helping farmers, the environment and food security

The facts are that, since 1996, biotech crop adoption has contributed to reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, decreased pesticide spraying and significantly boosted farmers’ incomes.  The technology has also made important contributions to increasing the yields of many farmers, raising global production and trading volumes of key crops.  World price levels of crops like corn and soybeans would also probably be higher than the current (record high) levels if this technology had not been widely adopted by farmers.  These economic and environmental gains have also been greatest in developing countries.

Looking at environmental impact, biotech crops have contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with biotech crops.  In 2006, this was equivalent to removing 14.8 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing nearly 6.6 million cars from the road for one year.  Biotech crops have also reduced pesticide spraying by 286 million kg (-7.8%: equivalent to about 40% of the annual volume of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the European Union) and as a result decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on the area planted to biotech crops by 15.4%.

Farmers using the technology gained an extra $7 billion in 2006 and $33.8 billion for the eleven year period.   Of this total farm income benefit, 43% has been due to yield gains, with the balance arising from reductions in the cost of production.  Farmers in developing countries obtained the largest share of the farm income gains in 2006 (54%).

In 2006, global production levels of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola were respectively +11.6 million tonnes of soybeans, +9.65 million tonnes of corn, +1.38 million tonnes of cotton lint and +0.21 million tonnes of canola higher than levels would have otherwise been if GM technology had not been used by farmers.  Put it another way,  if the GM technology had not been available, maintaining global production levels at the 2006 levels would have required additional plantings of, for example, 3.9 million ha of soybeans, 1 million ha of corn and 1.8 million ha of cotton.

These additional volumes of food and fibre production are significant in terms of global trade in these commodities; equal to +17% of global trade on soybeans, +11% of global trade in corn, +14%of global trade in cotton lint and +3% of global trade in canola.  This means that global trade levels in these crops are probably significantly higher than the levels would have been in the absence of use of GM technology and therefore world prices of these traded crops in 2006 were probably lower than they would otherwise have been.

For those interested in the detail, the full report is available on www.pgeconomics.co.uk and forthcoming in the peer review journal AgBioforum 11 (1) on www.agbioforum.org. 

   —Graham Brookes