Search PG Economics

Use the search below to search our website, if you can't find what you're looking for then contact us and we will do our best to help you.



EU losing out on contributions to sustainable farming from biotech traits[1]

Published on: 8th June 2009
Published By PG Economics

June 8th 2009, Dorchester, Dorset: New study shows GM insect resistant (GM IR) maize[2] has delivered important economic and environmental benefits but only a small part of the potential benefit is currently being realised.

 “GM insect resistant maize adoption by EU farmers has contributed to reducing insecticide spraying, improved the quality of maize and significantly boosted farmers’ incomes,” said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics, and author of the report. “The technology has made important contributions to increasing yields, reducing production risks and improving productivity.  These benefits are, however, being denied to farmers and citizens alike in several maize-growing EU Member States, with the biggest losers being the very countries which have effectively banned the use of the technology; Italy, France, Germany and Austria”

 Previewing the findings of the comprehensive study, the key findings are:     

  • In maize growing regions affected by corn boring pests, the main impact has been higher yields compared to conventional maize (average yield benefits of +10%);
  • In 2007, users of GM IR maize[3] earned average, additional income levels of +€186/ha (range of +€25 to +€201/ha).  Across all users of the technology, the total increase in farm income directly attributable to the technology in 2007 was +€20.6 million;
  • In certain regions, GM IR maize has delivered important improvements in grain quality from significant reductions in the levels of mycotoxins found in the grain;
  • Where maize growers have traditionally used insecticides to control corn boring pests, the switch to using GM IR technology has resulted in important reductions in insecticides use and its associated environmental impact (notably in Spain);
  • The potential EU adoption area for GM IR maize is between 2.25 million ha and 4 million ha, depending on the annual levels of pest pressure.  At these levels of adoption, the annual direct farm income benefit potential is €160 million and €247 million.  Across the EU only between 8% and 12% of this total potential benefit is being realised;
  • The countries currently foregoing the largest economic gains from GM IR maize technology are Italy, France and Germany, followed by Austria and Romania;
  • Annual savings of between 0.41 million kg and 0.7 million kg of insecticide active ingredient could be realised if GM IR maize technology was used on its full potential area.  At present, only between 14% and 25% of the total potential environmental benefit from reduced insecticide use is being realised;
  • Spain is the only EU member state where GM IR maize adoption levels are currently delivering farm income and environmental gains at or near full potential levels;
  • The countries currently foregoing the largest environmental benefits that might reasonably be realised from the use of GM IR maize are Italy, France and Germany[4].

For additional information, contact Graham Brookes.  Tel 00 44 (0) 1531 650123

[1] Download Full report .  This report also updates a previous study (using the same methodology), available on the same website and in the peer review scientific journal, International Journal of Biotechnology (2008, vol 10, 2/3).

[2] The only GM trait currently permitted for commercial farming use in the EU

[3] On about 110,000 hectares across the EU

[4] Austria and Romania lose out significantly in economic terms but less so environmentally, because use of insecticides for corn borer control in conventional maize production is a much less practiced corn borer control measure in these countries compared to Italy, France, and Germany

PG Economics: 8th Jun 2009 10:36:00


What Is (risk) Appropriate Regulation Of Gene Editing Technology?

Despite the much-hyped expectation that Europe was on course to follow other parts of the world in removing GMO-style regulatory requirements from gene edited (GE) crops, with EU elections looming and no agreement in sight the bloc now risks slipping back towards precautionary inertia. Summarising their recent peer-reviewed paper exploring risk-appropriate regulation for gene editing, agricultural economists Graham Brookes and Stuart Smyth warn that we must learn the lessons from past experience of divergent international regulation of agricultural innovations. The impact of over-precautionary EU regulation of gene editing will not only disadvantage European agriculture, but will also compromise global efforts to address urgent climate, biodiversity and food security challenges, they argue.

Feeding The Uk Sustainably: Time For Policy Inaction To End

As Ministers prepare to unveil a new land use framework for England this autumn, the scientific evidence behind land sparing as the most effective farm policy for delivering food production, climate and biodiversity goals is compelling. Why then does the UK government continue to favour a land sharing approach through its environmental land management schemes? The recent ‘re-interpretation’ of an expert land use report for the large, land-owning NGOs who commissioned it may provide some clues, writes agricultural economist Graham Brookes.

European Court Ruling On Neonicotinoids Further Highlights Muddle Created By Ongoing Eu Regulatory Inconsistency And Dysfunction

The recent Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling that EU Member States can no longer grant derogations (exemptions) for the use of neonicotinoid seed treatments to control pests in arable crops like sugar beet and oilseed rape raises a number of important questions and highlights the regulatory inconsistency and muddle that the European Union (EU) has created for itself

Feeding The World Sustainably: Crop Biotechnology Continues To Make A Significant Contribution, Concludes New Research

GM crop technology continues to make an important contribution to reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture and securing global food supplies in a sustainable way. It has reduced pressure to bring new land into agriculture, which is vital if the world is to maintain and restore the natural habitats and vegetation that are best for many species of plants and animal life and for storing carbon” said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics, author of the research.