Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Economic, Environmental, and Health Effects of GM Crops Matin Qaim Keynote Lecture, 19 th ICABR Conference June 2015, Ravello, Italy

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 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

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Beyond risks, what do we know about GM crop impacts? PAS Study Week

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 4 Global adoption of GM crops Source: James (2014).

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 5 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)

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 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 PAS Study Week  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

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Meta-analysis of GM crop impacts PAS Study Week Klümper and Qaim (2014, PLoS ONE) *, **, *** means significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Distribution of GM yield effects PAS Study Week Source: Klümper and Qaim (2014).

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Meta-analysis PAS Study Week (1) All GM crops (2) Insect resistance (3) Herbicide tolerance Yield21.6***24.9***9.3** Pesticide quantity-36.9***-41.7***2.4 Pesticide cost-39.2***-43.4***-25.3*** Total production cost3.35.2**-6.8 Farmer profit68.2***68.8***64.3 Source: Klümper and Qaim (2014). Breakdown by type of technology

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Breakdown by geographical regions PAS Study Week Yield Pesticide quantity Pesticide cost Farmer profit Developing country (dummy) 14.17*** ***59.52*** N Meta-regression results (percentage point effects) Source: Klümper and Qaim (2014). 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

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 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 PAS Study Week

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 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 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

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Bt impact on insecticide use PAS Study Week Source: Krishna and Qaim (2012).

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Bt impact on yield and farmer profit in India 15 Yield (kg/ha) Profit ($/ha) Bt effect 311*** (+24%) 94*** (+50%) Change over time0 / + Sources: Kathage and Qaim (2012), Qaim and Kouser (2013). Household consumption value (US$) 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

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 16 Household income effects per ha of cotton Extremely poorModerately poorNonpoor 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 Sources: Kathage and Qaim (2012), Qaim and Kouser (2013). TotalTox ITox II Tox III & IV Bt effect ( )-1.11***-0.56*-0.49*-0.06 Bt effect ( )-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

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Effects on varietal diversity PAS Study Week Mean number of cotton varieties grown by sample farms Source: Krishna, Qaim, Zilberman (2015).

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 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. PAS Study Week

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development …Future prospects PAS Study Week  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).