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.

 

 

Feeding the world sustainably: Crop biotechnology continues to make a significant contribution, concludes new research

Published on: 5th October 2022
Published By Graham Brookes



Press release:  5 October 2022: Dorchester, UK

Feeding the world sustainably: Crop biotechnology continues to make a significant contribution, concludes new research[1]

Genetically modified (GM) crops have increased global food, feed and fibre production by nearly 1 billion tonnes (1996-2020), whilst helping farmers who grow these crops to reduce the environmental footprint associated with their crop protection practices by over 17 percent[2].It has also reduced carbon emissions, by 39.1 billion kilograms, arising from reduced fuel use of 14.7 billion litres and equivalent to removing 25.9 million cars from the roads, according to research released today by PG Economics.

“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.  

Highlights in the peer reviewed[3] papers include:

Crop biotechnology has contributed to global food security and reduced pressure to use new land in agriculture

  • GM crop technology has increased yields through improved control of pests and weeds.  For example, insect resistant (IR) crop technology used in cotton and maize has, between 1996 to 2020 across all users of this technology, increased yields by an average of 17.7 percent for IR maize and 14.5 percent for IR cotton relative to conventional production systems.  Farmers who grow IR soybeans commercially in South America have seen an average 9.3 percent increase in yields since 2013.
  • Over 25 years of widespread use, crop biotechnology has been responsible for the additional global production of 330 million tonnes of soybeans, 595 million tonnes of maize, 37 million tonnes of cotton lint, 15.8 million tonnes of canola and 1.9 million tonnes of sugar beet.
  • GM crops allow farmers to grow more without needing to use additional land. For example, if crop biotechnology had not been available to farmers in 2020, maintaining global production levels that year would have required the planting of an additional 11.6 million hectares (ha) of soybeans, 8.5 million ha of maize, 2.8 million ha of cotton and 0.5 million ha of canola.  This 23.4 million ha total is equivalent to the combined agricultural area of Philippines and Vietnam.

Crop biotechnology has reduced agriculture’s environmental impact

  • Crop biotechnology has significantly reduced agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions by helping farmers adopt more sustainable practices such as reduced tillage, which decreases the burning of fossil fuels and retains more carbon in the soil.  Had GM crops not been grown in 2020, for example, an additional 23.6 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide would have been emitted into the atmosphere, which is the equivalent of adding 15.6 million cars to the roads.
  • From 1996 to 2020, crop biotechnology reduced the application of crop protection products by 748.6 million kilograms, a global reduction of 7.2 percent on the area planted to GM crops.  This is equal to 1.5 times China’s total annual crop protection product use.  As a result, farmers who grow GM crops have reduced the environmental impact associated with their crop protection practices by 17.3 percent.

Crop biotechnology delivers an excellent return on investment for the farmers using the technology

  • Over the 1996-2020 period, farmers in developing countries received $5.22 as extra income for each extra dollar invested in GM crop seeds, whereas farmers in developed countries received $3 as extra income for each extra dollar invested in GM crop seeds. The average return across all GM crop growers represents $3.76 in extra income for each extra dollar invested over the 1996-2020 period.
  • The net farm level economic benefit was just under $18.8 billion in 2020, equal to an average increase in income of $103/hectare.  From 1996 to 2020, the net global farm income benefit was $261.3 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $112/hectare.

For additional information, contact Graham Brookes at Tel +44(0) 1432 851007. www.pgeconomics.co.uk

 

[1]. Available as three separate papers (with open access) covering economic and environmental impacts, in the peer review journal GM Crops and Food.  The environmental impact associated with pesticide use is DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2022.2118497. Full article: Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use 1996–2020: Environmental Impacts Associated with Pesticide Use Change (tandfonline.com) The environmental impact associated with carbon emissions is DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2022.2118495 Full article: Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use 1996–2020: Impacts on Carbon Emissions (tandfonline.com)and the economic impact paper is DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2022.2105626.  Full article: Farm income and production impacts from the use of genetically modified (GM) crop technology 1996-2020 (tandfonline.com)

Also available as a single report at www.pgeconomics.co.uk

[2] As measured by Cornell University’s Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) indicator.

[3] Peer reviewed means accepted for publication in a scientific journal after review by independent experts in the subject(s).

 

Graham Brookes: 5th Oct 2022 09:00:00

Download PDF Version | Download Full Report
 

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.