Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Economic, Environmental, and Health Effects of GM Crops Matin Qaim Keynote Lecture, 19 th ICABR

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development

Economic, Environmental, and Health Effects of GM Crops

Matin Qaim

Keynote Lecture, 19th ICABR Conference16-19 June 2015, Ravello, Italy


GM crops: controversial topic

The public and policy debate is primarily focused on risks

In the EU and elsewhere, regulatory procedures were put in place treating GMOs very differently from other technologies

However, 30 years of research and 20 years of commercial experience have shown that GM crops are not inherently more risky than conventionally bred crops

This conclusion was drawn by Science Academies from all over the world and by International Organizations such as WHO, FAO, EU Research Directorate etc.

The public has not taken note of this scientific evidence

PAS Study Week 2009 2


Beyond risks, what do we know about GM crop impacts?


Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 4

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Mil

lio

n h

a

Total

Industrialized countries

Developing countries

Global adoption of GM crops

Source: James (2014).


Which countries? (>0.1 million ha)

Industrialized countries: USA, Canada, Australia, Spain

Developing countries: Brazil, Argentina, India, China, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Africa, Uruguay, Bolivia, Philippines, Burkina Faso, Myanmar, Mexico, Colombia, Sudan

Which GM crops/traits?

Herbicide tolerance (HT): soybean, maize, canola, alfalfa, sugarbeet

Insect resistance (Bt): maize, cotton (partly stacked with HT)


Impact studies

Many impact studies carried out over the last 20 years: Focusing on different countries With different types of data With different methodologies With different results


GMO supporters and opponents refer to their “preferred studies” in the debate, leading to further polarization

Meta-analysis can be useful to: Draw broader lessons from the cumulated evidence Explain reasons for heterogeneity in impacts


Meta-analysis of GM crop impacts


Klümper and Qaim (2014, PLoS ONE)

Crop

yield

(n=4

51)

Pestic

ide q

uant

ity (n

=121

)

Produ

ction

cos

t (n=

115)

Farm

er p

rofit

(n=1

36)

-60-40-20

020406080

21.6***

-36.9***

3.3

68.2***

Per

cen

t

*, **, *** means significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.


Distribution of GM yield effects


0.0

05.0

1.0

15.0

2D

ens

ity

-50 0 50 100change in yield (%)

Source: Klümper and Qaim (2014).


Meta-analysis


(1) All GM crops

(2) Insect resistance

(3) Herbicide tolerance

Yield 21.6*** 24.9*** 9.3**

Pesticide quantity -36.9*** -41.7*** 2.4

Pesticide cost -39.2*** -43.4*** -25.3***

Total production cost 3.3 5.2** -6.8

Farmer profit 68.2*** 68.8*** 64.3


Breakdown by type of technology


Breakdown by geographical regions


YieldPesticide quantity

Pesticide cost

Farmer profit

Developing country (dummy)

14.17*** -10.23 -19.16*** 59.52***

N 451 121 193 136

Meta-regression results (percentage point effects)


Developing-country farmers benefit more from GM crops:

1. Because they suffer more from pest and disease problems

2. Because most GM technologies are not patented there, so that seed prices are cheaper than in developed countries


Aggregate global effects

The aggregate farm level benefits of GM crops at the global level were estimated at 20.5 billion US$ in 2013 (Brookes and Barfoot, 2015)

GM technology adoption has contributed to a 24% reduction in pesticide environmental/ health impacts

HT has reduced GHG emissions due to reduced tillage (less fuel use, more carbon sequestration in soils)

Due to weed resistance to glyphosate, some of the environmental benefits of HT crops have been decreasing recently (not yet an issue for Bt)

Without GM yield advantages, 25 million ha of additional farmland would have been required



2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

2

4

6

8

10

12

Mil

lio

n h

a

12

Bt cotton adoption in India

In 2014: 11.6 m ha (95%)

Grown by around 8 million smallholders

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development IAAE 2009 13

Impact analysis with panel data

Survey of 530 farm households in:

• Maharashtra

• Andhra Pradesh

• Karnataka

• Tamil Nadu

Survey carried out four times between 2002 and 2009

Statistical differencing techniques to control for biases


Bt impact on insecticide use


Conventional 2002-2004

Bt 2002-2004 Bt 2006-2008 Conventional 2006-2008

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3K

g o

f a

cti

ve

in

gre

die

nt

pe

r a

cre

Source: Krishna and Qaim (2012).


Bt impact on yield and farmer profit in India

15

Yield (kg/ha)

Profit($/ha)

Bt effect311***(+24%)

94***(+50%)

Change over time 0 / + 0 / +

Sources: Kathage and Qaim (2012), Qaim and Kouser (2013).

Household consumption value (US$)

Calorie consumption (kcal/person)

Calories from high-value food (kcal/person)

Bt effect 321**(+18%)

145***(+5%)

47***(+7%)

Bt impact on household living standard


Household income effects per ha of cotton

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

-Extremely poor Moderately poor Non poor

All households

Bt

Conventional

US

$/ha

$246/ha

x 11.6 m = $2.9 billion Source: Subramanian and Qaim (2010).

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development PAS Study Week 2009 17

Sources: Kathage and Qaim (2012), Qaim and Kouser (2013).

Total Tox I Tox IITox III &

IV

Bt effect (2002-2004) -1.11*** -0.56* -0.49* -0.06

Bt effect (2006-2008) -1.79*** -1.08*** -0.66*** -0.06**

Environmental and health effects of Bt

Effects on pesticide use by toxicity class (per acre)

Source: Kouser and Qaim (2011),

Cases per acre Cases in total India (million)

Bt effect -0.104*** -2.98***

Effects on cases of acute pesticide poisoning


Effects on varietal diversity


Farm level Village level District level State level0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2002 2004 2006 2008

Nu

mb

erMean number of cotton varieties grown by sample farms

Source: Krishna, Qaim, Zilberman (2015).


Future prospects Evidence suggests that GM crops contribute to sustainable

development (economic, social, environmental)

Effects differ by type of technology and context. The range of commercialized GM crops still limited

Future technologies are even more promising

Many interesting GM technologies tested in the field:

Drought-tolerant and salt-tolerant maize, rice, and wheat

Maize and rice with higher nitrogen use efficiency

Micronutrient-rich rice, sorghum, cassava, and banana

Pest- and disease-resistant rice, cassava, pulses, vegetables

Etc.



…Future prospects


Will these promising technologies ever make it through all the regulatory and societal hurdles?

As for any transformative technology, there are certain issues that need to be addressed, e.g.:

Market power

Seed market infrastructure

Unsustainable agricultural practices

But technology bans are hardly the best answer. More sensible regulation and better policies are required

Further reading:Qaim, M. (2015). Genetically Modified Crops and Agricultural

Development. Palgrave Macmillan (to be published in Nov. 2015).

Documents

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Economic, Environmental, and Health Effects of GM Crops Matin Qaim Keynote Lecture, 19 th ICABR