Global income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2013

Figures & data

Table 1. GM soybeans: Summary of average farm level economic impacts 1996–2013 ($/hectare)

Country	Cost of technology	Average farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology)	Type of benefit	References
1^st generation GM HT soybeans
Romania (to 2006 only)	50–60	104	Small cost savings of about $9/ha, balance due to yield gains of +13% to +31%	Brookes (2005) Monsanto Romania (2007)
Argentina	2–4	22 plus second crop benefits of 237	Cost savings plus second crop gains	Qaim and Traxler (2005) Trigo and CAP (2006) and updated from 2008 to reflect herbicide usage and price changes
Brazil	11–25	34	Cost savings	Parana Department of Agriculture (2004) Galveo (2010, 2012 and 2013) and updated to reflect herbicide usage and price changes
USA	15–53	36	Cost savings	Marra et al. (2002) Carpenter and Gianessi (2002) Sankala and Blumenthal (2003, 2006) Johnson and Strom (2008) And updated to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
Canada	20–40	20	Cost savings	George Morris Centre (2004) and updated to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
Paraguay	4–10	17 plus second crop benefits of 237	Cost savings	Based on Argentina as no country-specific analysis identified. Impacts confirmed by industry sources and herbicide costs and usage updated 2009 onwards from herbicide survey data (AMIS Global)
Uruguay	2–4	18	Cost savings	Based on Argentina as no country-specific analysis identified. Impacts confirmed by industry sources and herbicide costs and usage updated 2009 onwards from herbicide survey data (AMIS Global)
South Africa	2–30	5	Cost savings	As there are no published studies available, based on data from industry sources and herbicide costs and usage updated 2009 onwards from herbicide survey data (AMIS Global)
Mexico	20–41	52	Cost savings plus yield gain in range of +2% to +13%	Monsanto annual monitoring reports submitted to Ministry of Agriculture and personal communications
Bolivia	3–4	90	Cost savings plus yield gain of +15%	Fernandez et al. (2009)
2nd^t generation GM HT soybeans
US and Canada	50–65	141 (US) 141 (Can)	Cost savings as first generation plus yield gains in range of +5% to +11%	As first generation GM HT soybeans plus annual farm level survey data from Monsanto USA
Intacta soybeans
Brazil	56	135	Herbicide cost saving as 1^st generation plus insecticide saving $19/ha and yield gain +10%	Monsanto Brazil pre commercial trials and MB Agro (2013)
Argentina	56	62	Herbicide cost saving as 1^st generation plus insecticide saving $21/ha and yield gain +9%	Monsanto Argentina pre commercial trials
Paraguay	56	130	Herbicide cost saving as 1^st generation plus insecticide saving $33/ha and yield gain +13%	Monsanto Paraguay pre commercial trials
Uruguay	56	47	Herbicide cost saving as 1^st generation plus insecticide saving $19/ha and yield gain +9%	Monsanto Uruguay pre commercial trials

Notes:

1. Romania stopped growing GM HT soybeans in 2007 after joining the European Union, where the trait is not approved for planting

2. The range in values for cost of technology relates to annual changes in the average cost paid by farmers. It varies for reasons such as the price of the technology set by seed companies, exchange rates, average seed rates and values identified in different studies

3. Intacta soybeans (HT and IR) first grown commercially in 2013

4. For additional details of how impacts have been estimated, see examples in Appendix 1

Table 2. GM HT maize: summary of average farm level economic impacts 1996–2013 ($/hectare)

Country	Cost of technology	Average farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology)	Type of benefit	References
USA	15–30	24	Cost savings	Carpenter and Gianessi (2002) Sankala and Blumenthal (2003, 2006) Johnson and Strom (2008) Also updated annually to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
Canada	17–35	35	Cost savings	Monsanto Canada (personal communications) and updated annually since 2008 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage
Argentina	16–33	29	Cost savings plus yield gains over 10% and higher in some regions	Personal communication from Monsanto Argentina, Grupo CEO and updated since 2008 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage
South Africa	10–18	3	Cost savings	Personal communication from Monsanto South Africa and updated since 2008 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage
Brazil	17–32	64	Cost savings plus yield gains of +1% to +7%	Galveo (2010, 2012, 2013)
Colombia	22–24	17	Cost savings	Mendez et al. (2011)
Philippines	24–47	36	Cost savings plus yield gains of +5% to +15%	Gonsales (2009) Monsanto Philippines (personal communications) Updated since 2010 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage

1. The range in values for cost of technology relates to annual changes in the average cost paid by farmers. It varies for reasons such as the price of the technology set by seed companies, exchange rates, average seed rates and values identified in different studies

2. For additional details of how impacts have been estimated, see examples in Appendix 1

Table 3. GM HT cotton summary of average farm level economic impacts 1996–2013 ($/hectare)

Country	Cost of technology	Average farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology)	Type of benefit	References
USA	13–82	22	Cost savings	Carpenter and Gianessi (2002) Sankala and Blumenthal (2003, 2006) Johnson and Strom (2008) Also updated to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
South Africa	15–32	35	Cost savings	Personal communication from Monsanto South Africa and updated since 2008 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage
Australia	32–82	29	Cost savings	Doyle (2003) Monsanto Australia (personal communications) and updated to reflect changes in herbicide usage and prices
Argentina	14–30	40	Cost savings	Personal communication from Monsanto Argentina, Grupo CEO and updated since 2008 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage
Uruguay	13	2	Cost savings	Personal communications from Monsanto Uruguay
Paraguay	17	1	Cost savings	Personal communications Monsanto Paraguay
Brazil	33–52	69	Cost savings plus yield gains of +2% to +4% (-2% 2013)	Galveo (2010, 2012, 2013)
Mexico	29–79	202	Cost savings plus yield gains of +3% to +18%	Monsanto Mexico annual monitoring reports submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture and personal communications
Colombia	96–187	99	Cost savings plus yield gains of +4%	Monsanto Colombia annual personal communications

1. The range in values for cost of technology relates to annual changes in the average cost paid by farmers. It varies for reasons such as the price of the technology set by seed companies, exchange rates, average seed rates, the nature and effectiveness of the technology (eg, second generation 'Flex' cotton offered more flexible and cost effective weed control than the earlier first generation of HT technology) and values identified in different studies

2. For additional details of how impacts have been estimated, see examples in Appendix 1

Table 4. Other GM HT crops summary of average farm level economic impacts 1996–2013 ($/hectare)

Country	Cost of technology	Average farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology)	Type of benefit	References
GM HT canola
US	12–33	52	Mostly yield gains of +1% to +12% (especially Invigor canola)	Sankala and Blumenthal (2003, 2006) Johnson and Strom (2008) And updated to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
Canada	18–32	53	Mostly yield gains of +3% to +12% (especially Invigor canola)	Canola Council (2001) Gusta (2009) and updated to reflect herbicide price changes and seed variety trial data (on yields)
Australia	13–41	56	Mostly yield gains of +12% to +22% (where replacing triazine tolerant canola) but no yield gain relative to other non GM (herbicide tolerant canola)	Monsanto Australia (2009), Fischer and Tozer (2009) and Hudson (2013)
GM HT sugar beet
US and Canada	130–151	115	Mostly yield gains of +3% to +13%	Kniss (2008) Khan (2008) Jon-Joseph et al. (2010) Annual updates of herbicide price and usage data

Notes:

1. In Australia, one of the most popular type of production has been canola tolerant to the triazine group of herbicides (tolerance derived from non GM techniques). It is relative to this form of canola that the main farm income benefits of GM HT (to glyphosate) canola has occurred

2. InVigor' hybrid vigour canola (tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate) is higher yielding than conventional or other GM HT canola and derives this additional vigour from GM techniques

3. The range in values for cost of technology relates to annual changes in the average cost paid by farmers. It varies for reasons such as the price of the technology set by seed companies, exchange rates, average seed rates and values identified in different studies

4. For additional details of how impacts have been estimated, see examples in Appendix 1

Table 5. Average (%) yield gains GM IR cotton and maize 1996–2013

	Maize insect resistance to corn boring pests	Maize insect resistance to rootworm pests	Cotton insect resistance	References
US	7.0	5.0	9.9	Carpenter and Gianessi (2002) Marra et al. (2002) Sankala and Blumenthal (2003, 2006) Hutchison et al. (2010) Rice (2004) Mullins and Hudson (2004)
China	N/a	N/a	10.0	Pray et al. (2002) Monsanto China (personal communications)
South Africa	11.4	N/a	24.0	Gouse et al. (2005), Gouse, Piesse, et al. (2006), Gouse, Pray, et al. (2006) Van der Weld (2010) Ismael et al. (2002) Kirsten et al. (2002) James (2003)
Honduras	23.7	N/a	N/a	Falck Zepeda et al. (2009, 2012)
Mexico	N/a	N/a	10.0	Traxler et al. (2001) Monsanto Mexico annual cotton monitoring reports
Argentina	6.2	N/a	30.0	Trigo (2002) Trigo and Cap (2006) Qaim and De Janvry (2002, 2005) Elena (2001)
Philippines	18.3	N/a	N/a	Gonsales (2005) Gonsales (2008) Yorobe (2004) Ramon (2005)
Spain	10.7	N/a	N/a	Brookes (2003 and 2008) Gomez-Barbero and Rodriguez-Corejo (2006) Riesgo et al. (2012)
Uruguay	5.5	N/a	N/a	As Argentina (no country-specific studies available and industry sources estimate similar impacts as in Argentina)
India	N/a	N/a	33.0	Bennett et al. (2004) IMRB (2006, 2007) Herring and Rao (2012)
Colombia	21.5	N/a	20.0	Mendez et al. (2011) Zambrano et al. (2009)
Canada	7.0	5.0	N/a	As US (no country-specific studies available and industry sources estimate similar impacts as in the US)
Burkina Faso	N/a	N/a	18.0	Vitale et al. (2008), Vitale (2010)
Brazil	13.4	N/a	-1	Galveo (2009, 2010, 2012, 2013) Monsanto Brazil (2008)
Pakistan	N/a	N/a	20.0	Nazli et al. (2010), Kouser and Qaim (2013; 2014)
Burma	N/a	N/a	31.0	USDA (2011)
Australia	N/a	N/a	Nil	Doyle (2005) James (2002) CSIRO (2005) Fitt (2001)
Paraguay	5.5	N/a	Not available	As Argentina (no country-specific studies available and industry sources estimate similar impacts as in Argentina)

Note: N/a = not applicable

Table 6. GM IR crops: average farm income benefit 1996–2013 ($/hectare)

Country	GM IR maize: cost of technology	GM IR maize (average farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology)	GM IR cotton: cost of technology	GM IR cotton (average farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology)
US	17–32 IRCB, 22–42 IR CRW	83 IRCB, 80 IR CRW	26–58	109
Canada	17–25 IRCB, 22–42 IR CRW	76 IRCB 98 IR CRW	N/a	N/a
Argentina	20–33	20	26–86	239
Philippines	30–47	96	N/a	N/a
South Africa	8–17	93	14–50	160
Spain	17–51	214	N/a	N/a
Uruguay	20–33	28	N/a	N/a
Honduras	100	65	N/a	N/a
Colombia	43–49	253	50–175	67
Brazil	47–69	102	31–52	-4
China	N/a	N/a	38–60	349
Australia	N/a	N/a	85–299	215
Mexico	N/a	N/a	48–75	184
India	N/a	N/a	14–54	242
Burkina Faso	N/a	N/a	51–54	104
Burma	N/a	N/a	17–20	94
Pakistan	N/a	N/a	4–15	127
Paraguay	20	15	N/a	N/a
Average across all user countries		81		226

Notes:

1. GM IR maize all are IRCB unless stated (IRCB = insect resistance to corn boring pests), IRCRW = insect resistance to corn rootworm

2. The range in values for cost of technology relates to annual changes in the average cost paid by farmers. It varies for reasons such as the price of the technology set by seed companies, the nature and effectiveness of the technology (eg, second generation 'Bollgard' cotton offered protection against a wider range of pests than the earlier first generation of 'Bollgard' technology), exchange rates, average seed rates and values identified in different studies.

3. Average across all countries is a weighted average based on areas planted in each user country

4. n/a = not applicable

Table 7. Additional crop production arising from positive yield effects of GM crops

	1996–2013 additional production (million tonnes)	2013 additional production (million tonnes)
Soybeans	138.20	15.91
Corn	273.48	44.21
Cotton	21.70	2.78
Canola	8.00	1.07
Sugar beet	0.76	0.15

Note: Sugar beet, US and Canada only (from 2008)

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Yield assumption % change	Base yield (tonnes/ha)	Farm level price ($/tonne)	Cost of technology ($/ha)	Impact on costs, net of cost of technology ($/ha)	Change in farm income ($/ha)	Change in farm income at national level (‘000 $)	Production impact (‘000 tonnes)
US	26,964	+7	9.46	185	-29.1	-27.0	+95.2	+3,585,912	+19,120
Canada	1,243	+7	9.06	165	-20.4	-18.01	+86.61	+107,739	+788
Argentina	3,432	+5.5	6.36	145	-23.0	-23.0	+27.8	+95,269	+1,200
Philippines	715	+18	2.74	274	-47.1	-31.8	+103.2	+73,814	+353
South Africa	2,360	+10.6	4.87	252	-11.7	-1.66	+128.30	+304,741	+1,218
Spain	137	+12.6	10.4	219	-46.0	-38.0	+214.5	+29,382	+179
Uruguay	106.8	+5.5	5.39	217	-23.0	-23.0	+41.3	+4,412	+32
Honduras	20	+24	3.45	224	-100	-100.0	+185.4	+1,709	+16.6
Portugal	8.2	+12.5	7.43	224	-46	-46	+161.7	+1,321	+8
CzechRepublic	2.6	+10	6.82	259	-46	-23.9	+153.9	+314	+2
Brazil	11,880	+14.6	4.61	283	-47.31	-35.3	+155.7	+1,849,477	+8,012
Colombia	65.9	+22	3.55	340	-47.5	+5.8	+271.1	+17,867	+51.4
Paraguay	550	+5.5	4.38	145	-19.92	-19.92	+15.01	+8,254	+132

Notes:

One. Impact on costs net of cost of technology = cost savings from reductions in pesticide costs, labor use, fuel use etc from which the additional cost (premium) of the technology has been deducted. For example (above) US cost savings from reduced expenditure on insecticides = +$15.88/ha, limited to an area equivalent to 10% of the total crop area (the area historically treated with insecticides for corn boring pests). This converted to an average insecticide cost saving equivalent per hectare of GM IR crop of =$2.09/ha. After deduction of the cost of technology which is shown as a negative 'in farm income terms' (-$29.1/ha) is deducted to leave a net impact on costs of -$27.04 (ie, a negative sign for impact on costs = an incease in costs so that the cost of the trait is greater than the savings on insecticide expenditure)

Two. There are no Canadian-specific studies available, hence application of US study findings to the Canadian context (US being the nearest country for which relevant data is available)

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Yield assumption % change	Base yield (tonnes/ha)	Farm level price ($/tonne)	Cost of technology ($/ha)	Impact on costs, net of cost of technology ($/ha)	Change in farm income ($/ha)	Change in farm income at national level (‘000 $)	Production impact (‘000 tonnes)
US	18,942	+5	9.46	185	-29.13	-6.69	+80.60	+1,527,575	+8,960
Canada	885	+5	9.06	165	-29	+0.35	+75.12	+66,485	+401

Notes:

One. There are no Canadian-specific studies available, hence application of US study findings to the Canadian context (US being the nearest country for which relevant data is available)

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Yield assumption % change	Base yield (tonnes/ha)	Farm level price ($/tonne)	Cost of technology ($/ha)	Impact on costs, net of cost of technology ($/ha)	Change in farm income ($/ha)	Change in farm income at national level (‘000 $)	Production impact (‘000 tonnes)
US	2,296	+10	0.86	1,728	-49.92	-17.61	+131.02	+300,814	+197
China	4,200	+10	1.31	2,657	-59.19	+27.96	+376.03	+1,579,316	+550
South Africa	8	+24	0.31	1,285	-35.75	-22.58	+73.02	+555	+1
Australia	399	Zero	2.05	2,239	-290	+244.3	+244.3	+97,425	Zero
Mexico	100	+8.95	1.57	1,831	-74.58	-57.75	+199.52	+19,926	+14
Argentina	484	+30	0.38	2,443	-21.25	-32.36	+310.81	+150,431	+55
India	11,000	+24	0.46	1,572	-13.66	+18.03	+191.57	+2,107,291	+1,214
Colombia	25	+10	0.72	2,087	-168.43	-82.83	+67.47	+1,695	+2
Brazil	440	-1.84	1.52	1,995	-30.89	-6.63	-49.15	-21,669	-12
Burkina Faso	386	+18.15	0.42	1,285	-53.48	-0.9	+97.06	+37,502	+29
Pakistan	2,800	+22	1.06	537	-3.99	+6.03	+131.33	+367,718	+653
Burma	255	+30	0.74	537	-20	-9.98	+109.30	+27,871	+57

Note price is for lint, except in Burma and Pakistan which is for seed

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Yield assumption % change	Base yield (tonnes/ha)	Farm level price ($/tonne)	Cost of technology ($/ha)	Impact on costs, net of cost of technology ($/ha)	Change in farm income ($/ha)	Change in farm income at national level (‘000 $)	Production impact (‘000 tonnes)
US 1^st generation	11,153	Nil	2.96	473	-49.42	+12.55	+12,55	+139,965	Nil
US 2^nd generation	17,402	+11	2.78	473	-62.05	-0.08	+144.53	+2,515,107	+5,321
Canada 1^st generation	378	Nil	2.86	534	-25.55	+19.50	+19.50	+7,372	Nil
Canada 2^nd generation	1,044	+11	2.69	534	-43.54	+1.51	+159.51	+166,533	+309
Argentina	19,589	Nil	2.54	306	-2.5	+24.27	+24.27	+475,333	Nil
Brazil	23,441	Nil	2.84	462	-12.06	+30.14	+30.14	+766,146	Nil
Paraguay	2,898	Nil	2.61	408	-4.4	+11.23	+11.23	+32,554	Nil
South Africa	463	Nil	1.88	345	-1.55	+8.77	+8.77	+4,027	Nil
Uruguay	1,393	Nil	2.41	302	-2.5	+16.83	+16.83	+23,104	Nil
Mexico	12	+9.87	1.59	467	-40.91	-14.33	+87.84	+1,504	+1.9
Bolivia	1,001	+15	1.67	487	-3.32	+5.96	+102.75	+102,852	+251

Notes:

One. Price discount for GM soybeans relative to non GM soybeans in Bolivia of 2.7% - price for non GM soybeans was $474/tonne - price shown above is discounted

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Yield assumption % change	Base yield (tonnes/ha)	Farm level price ($/tonne)	Cost of technology ($/ha)	Impact on costs, net of cost of technology ($/ha)	Change in farm income ($/ha)	Change in farm income at national level (‘000 $)	Production impact (‘000 tonnes)
US	30,157	Nil	9.97	185	-30.02	+33.12	+33.12	+998,909	Nil
Canada	1,428	Nil	9.59	165	-35.59	+20.03	+20.03	+28,600	Nil
Argentina: as single trait	312	+3% con belt, +22% marginal areas	7.15 corn belt, 4.36 marginal areas	145	-13.2	+1.26	+31.1 corn belt, +139.08 marginal areas	+30,311	+206
Argentina: as stacked trait	2,457	+10.25	6.36	145	-28	-13.58	+80.95	+198,890	+1,602
South Africa	1,690	Nil	5.32	252	-12.43	+11.57	+11.57	+19,555	Nil
Philippines	794	+5	2.74	274	-47.12	-14.44	+23.07	+18,321	+109
Colombia	7	Zero	3.66	340	-23.19	+16.43	+16.43	+181	Nil
Brazil	6.291	+6.84	4.61	283	-28.88	-15.57	+73.77	+464,093	+1,985
Uruguay	97	Nil	5.63	217	-13.19	+1.3	+1.3	+122	Nil
Paraguay	550	Nil	4.5	145	-17.08	+0.8	+0.8	+438	Nil

Notes:

One. Where no positive yield effect due to this technology is applied, the base yields shown are the indicative average yields for the crops and differ (are higher) than those used for the GM IR base yield analysis, which have been adjusted downwards to reflect the impact of the yield enhancing technology (see below)

Two. Argentina: single trait. In the Corn Belt it is assumed that 70% of trait plantings occur in this region and marginal regions account for the balance. In relation to stacked traits, the yield impact (+10.25%) is in addition to the yield 5.5% impact presented for the GM IR trait (above). In other words the total estimated yield impact of stacked traits is +15.75%. The cost of the technology also relates specifically to the HT part of the technology (sold within the stack)

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Yield assumption % change	Base yield (tonnes/ha)	Farm level price ($/tonne)	Cost of technology ($/ha)	Impact on costs, net of cost of technology ($/ha)	Change in farm income ($/ha)	Change in farm income at national level (‘000 $)	Production impact (‘000 tonnes)
US	2,510	Nil	0.921	1,728	-74.13	+20.60	+20.60	+51,708	Nil
S Africa	8	Nil	0.38	1,285	-18.9	+37.5	+37.5	+285	Nil
Australia	417	Nil	2.05	2,239	-72.39	+20.84	+20.84	+20,870	Nil
Argentina	550	Farm saved seed area nil Certified seed area +9.3%	0.474	2,443	- 13.82 certified seed,- 10 farm saved seed	+3.84 certified seed, + 7.66 farm saved seed	+ 111.51 certified seed, +7.66 farm saved seed	+21,349	+7
Mexico	102	+14.2	1.57	1,831	-79.2	+74.88	+333.43	+34,010	+23
Colombia	27	+4.0	0.72	2,087	-179.9	-28.25	+88.37	+2,378	+1
Brazil	361	-1.84	1.52	1,995	-20.11	+62.76	+6.98	+2,519	-10

Notes:

One. Where no positive yield effect due to this technology is applied, the base yields shown are the indicative average yields for the crops and differ (are higher) than those used for the GM IR base yield analysis, which have been adjusted downwards to reflect the impact of the yield enhancing technology (see below)

Two. Argentina: 30% of area assumed to use certified seed with 70% farm saved seed

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Yield assumption % change	Base yield (tonnes/ha)	Farm level price ($/tonne)	Cost of technology ($/ha)	Impact on costs, net of cost of technology ($/ha)	Change in farm income ($/ha)	Change in farm income at national level (‘000 $)	Production impact (‘000 tonnes)
US glyphosate tolerant	213	+3.1	1.85	481	-17.3	+2.2	+29.8	+6,343	+13
US glufosinate tolerant	194	+10.15	1.85	481	-17.3	+15.3	+75.05	+14,560	+30
Canada glyphosate tolerant	3,891	+3.1	2.11	495	-35.92	-2.95	+29.63	+115,294	+254
Canada glufosinate tolerant	3,555	+10.2	2.11	495	Nil	+15.13	+121.17	+430,715	+762
Australia glyphosate tolerant	222	+11	1.56	440	-12.55	-0.85	+60.66	+13,489	+38

Note: Baseline (conventional) comparison in Canada with herbicide tolerant (non GM) 'Clearfield' varieties

Table

Country	Area of trait (ha)	Yield assumption % change	Base yield (tonnes/ha)	Farm level price ($/tonne)	Cost of technology ($/ha)	Impact on costs, net of cost of technology ($/ha)	Change in farm income ($/ha)	Change in farm income at national level (‘000 $)	Production impact (‘000 tonnes)
US Papaya	395	+17	22.86	749.7	-494	-494	+2,420	+955	+1.5
US squash	2,000	+100	19.21	746	-736	-736	+13,595	+27,191	+38

Table

Country	Area of trait (000’ ha)	Yield assumption % change	Base yield sucrose(tonnes/ha)	Farm level price equivalent (sucrose: $/tonne)	Cost of tech ($/ha)	Impact on costs, net of cost of tech ($/ha)	Change in farm income ($/ha)	Change in farm income at national level (‘000 $)	Production impact (‘000 tonnes)
US	458	+3.12	10.29	345.42	-148	+1.81	+112.63	+51,548	+149
Canada	15	+3.12	7.78	545.42	-148	+1.81	+85.60	+1,284	+4

Table

Year	Second crop area (million ha)	Average gross margin/ha for second crop soybeans ($/ha)	Increase in income linked to GM HT system (million $)
1996	0.45	128.78	Negligible
1997	0.65	127.20	25.4
1998	0.8	125.24	43.8
1999	1.4	122.76	116.6
2000	1.6	125.38	144.2
2001	2.4	124.00	272.8
2002	2.7	143.32	372.6
2003	2.8	151.33	416.1
2004	3.0	226.04	678.1
2005	2.3	228.99	526.7
2006	3.2	218.40	698.9
2007	4.94	229.36	1,133.6
2008	3.35	224.87	754.1
2009	3.55	207.24	736.0
2010	4.40	257.70	1,133.8
2011	4.60	257.40	1,184.0
2012	2.90	291.00	844.6
2013	3.46	289.80	1,001.6

Source and notes:

One. Crop areas and gross margin data based on data supplied by Grupo CEO and the Argentine Ministry of Agriculture. No data available before 2000, hence 2001 data applied to earlier years but adjusted, based on GDP deflator rates

Two. The second cropping benefits are based on the gross margin derived from second crop soybeans multiplied by the total area of second crop soybeans (less an assumed area of second crop soybeans that equals the second crop area in 1996 – this was discontinued from 2004 because of the importance farmers attach to the GM HT system in facilitating them remaining in no tillage production systems)

Table

Country	Average yield across all forms of production (t/ha)	Total cotton area (‘000 ha)	Total production (‘000 tonnes)	GM IR area (‘000 ha)	Conventional area (‘000 ha)	Assumed yield effect of GM IR technology	Adjusted base yield for conventional cotton (t/ha)	GM IR production (‘000 tonnes)	Conventional production (‘000 tonnes)
US	0.921	3,061	2,819	765	873	+10%	0.86	2,172	889
China	1.422	4,900	6,968	4,200	987	+10%	1.31	6,052	916

Note: Figures subject to rounding

Table

Country	Yield impact assumption used	Rationale	Yield references	Cost of technology data/assumptions	Cost savings (excluding impact of seed premium) assumptions
GM IR corn: resistant to corn boring pests
US & Canada	+7% all years	Broad average of impact identified from several studies/papers and latest review/analysis covering 1996–2010 period	Carpenter & Gianessi (2002) found yield impacts of +9.4% 1997, +3% 1998, +2.5% 1999 Marra et al. (2002) average impact of +5.04% 1997–2000 based a review of 5 studies, James (2003) average impact of +5.2% 1996–2002, Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006) range of +3.1% to +9.9%. Hutchison et al. (2010) +7% examining impact over the period 1996–2010. Canada - no studies identified – as US - impacts qualitatively confirmed by industry sources (annual personal communications)	As identified in studies to 2008 and onwards based on weighted seed premia according to sale of seed sold as single and stacked traited seed	As identified in studies to 2005 and in subsequent year adjusted to reflect broad cost of ‘foregone’ insecticide use
Argentina	+9% all years to 2004, +5.5% 2005 onwards	Average of reported impacts in first 7 years, later revised downwards for more recent years to reflect professional opinion	James (2003) cites 2 unpublished industry survey reports; one for 1996–1999 showing an average yield gain of +10% and one for 2000–2003 showing a yield gain of +8%, Trigo (2002) Trigo & Cap (2006) +10%, Trigo (2007 and 2008) personal communication estimates average yield impact since 2005 to be lower at between +5% and +6%	Cost of technology drawn from Trigo (2002) and Trigo & Cap (2006), ie, costed/priced at same level as US From 2007 based on Trigo and industry personal communications	None as maize crops not traditionally treated with insecticides for corn boring pest damage
Philippines	+24.6% to 2006, 2007–11 +18%	Average of 3 studies used all years to 2006. Thereafter based on Gonzales et al. (2009)	Gonsales (2005) found average yield impact of +23% dry season crops and +20% wet season crops; Yorobe (2004) +38% dry season crops and +35% wet season crops; Ramon (2005) found +15.3% dry season crops and +13.3% wet season crops. Gonsales (2009) +18%	Based on Gonsales (2005) & Gonsales (2009) – the only sources to break down these costs. Seed premia from 2012 based on based on weighted cost of seed sold as single and stacked traits	Based on Gonsales (2005) & Gonsales (2009)
South Africa	+11% 2000 and 2001 +32% 2002 +16% 2003 +5% 2004 +15% 2005–2007, +10.6% 2008 onwards	Reported average impacts used for years available (2000–2004), 2005–2007 based on average of other years. 2008 onwards based on Van der Welt (2009)	Gouse et al. (2005), Gouse, Piesse et al. (2006), Gouse, Pray et al. (2006) reported yield impacts as shown (range of +11% to +32%), Van der Wald (2010)	Based on the same papers as used for yield, plus confirmation in 2006–2011 that these are representative values from industry sources	Sources as for cost of technology
Spain	+6.3% 1998–2004 +10% 2005–2008. 2009 onwards +12.6%	Impact based on authors own detailed, representative analysis for period 1998–2002 then updated to reflect improved technology based on industry analysis. From 2009 based on Riesgo et al. (2012)	Brookes (2003) identified an average of +6.3% using the Bt 176 trait mainly used in the period 1998–2004 (range +1% to +40% for the period 1998–2002). From 2005, 10% used based on Brookes (2008) which derived from industry (unpublished sources) commercial scale trials and monitoring of impact of the newer, dominant trait Mon 810 in the period 2003–2007. Gomez Barbero & Rodriguez-Cereozo (2006) reported an average impact of +5% for Bt 176 used in 2002–2004. Riesgo et al. (2012) +12.6% identified as average yield gain	Based on Brookes (2003) the only source to break down these costs. The more recent cost of technology costs derive from industry sources (reflecting the use of Mon 810 technology). Industry sources also confirm value for insecticide cost savings as being representative. From 2009, based on Riesgo et al. (2012)	Sources as for cost of technology
Other EU	France +10%, Germany +4%, Portugal +12.5%, Czech Republic +10%, Slovakia +12.3%, Poland +12.5%, Romania +7.1% 2007, +9.6% 2008 and +4.8% 2009 and 2010	Impacts based on average of available impact data in each country	Based on Brookes (2008) which drew on a number of sources. For France 4 sources with average yield impacts of +5% to +17%, for Germany the sole source had average annual impacts of +3.5% and +9.5% over a 2 y period, for Czech Republic 3 studies identified average impacts in 2005 of an average of 10% and a range of +5% to +20%; for Portugal, commercial trial and plot monitoring reported +12% in 2005 and between +8% and +17% in 2006; in Slovakia based on trials for 2003–2007 and 2006/07 plantings with yield gains averaging between +10% and +14.7%; in Poland based on variety trial tests 2005 and commercial trials 2006 which had a range of +2% to +26%; Romania based on reported impact by industry sources	Data derived from the same source(s) referred to for yield	Data derived from the same source(s) referred to for yield
Uruguay	As Argentina	As Argentina	No country-specific studies identified, so impact analysis from nearest country of relevance (Argentina) applied	As Argentina	As Argentina
Paraguay	As Argentina	As Argentina	No country-specific studies identified, so impact analysis from nearest country of relevance (Argentina) applied	As Argentina	As Argentina
Brazil	+4.66% 2008, +7.3% 2009 and 2010, +20.1% 2011, +14.6% 2012	Farmer surveys	Galveo (2009, 2010, 2012, 2013)	Data derived from the same references as cited for yield impacts. Seed premium based on weighted average of seed sales	Data derived from the same references as cited for yield impacts
Honduras	+13% 2003–2006 +24% 2007- 2011	Trials results 2002 and farmer survey findings in 2007–2008	James (2003) cited trials results for 2002 with a 13% yield increase Falck Zepeda et al. (2009 and 2012) +24%	A proxy seed premium of $30/ha used during trials (to 2005) based on seed premia in S Africa and the Philippines. From 2006 when commercialised based on industry sources	Nil – no insecticide assumed to be used on conventional crops
Colombia	+22%	Mendez et al. (2011)	Mendez et al. (2011) farm survey from 2009	Mendez et al. (2011)	Mendez et al. (2011)
GM IR corn (resistant to corn rootworm)	Yield impact assumption used	Rationale	Yield references	Cost of technology data/assumptions	Cost savings (excluding impact of seed premium) assumptions
US & Canada	+5% all years	Based on the impact used by the references cited	Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006) used +5% in analysis citing this as conservative, themselves having cited impacts of +12%-+19% in 2005 in Iowa, +26% in Illinois in 2005 and +4%-+8% in Illinois in 2004. Johnson & Strom (2008) used the same basis as Sankala & Blumenthal Rice (2004) range of +1.4% to +4.5% (based on trials) Canada - no studies identified – as US - impacts qualitatively confirmed by industry sources (personal communications 2005, 2007 and 2010)	Data derived from Sankala & Blumenthal (2006) and Johnson & Strom (2008). Seed costs 2008 onwards based on weighted seed sales of single and stacked traits Canada - no studies identified – as US - impacts qualitatively confirmed by industry sources	As identified in studies to 2005 and in subsequent year adjusted to reflect broad cost of ‘foregone’ insecticide use
IR cotton	Yield impact assumption used	Rationale	Yield references	Cost of technology data/assumptions	Cost savings (excluding impact of seed premium) assumptions
US	+9% 1996–2002 +11% 2003 and 2004 +10% 2005 onwards	Based on the (conservative) impact used by the references cited	Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and (2006) drew on earlier work from Carpenter and Gianessi (2002) in which they estimated the average yield benefit in the 1996–2000 period was +9%. Marra et al. (2002) examined the findings of over 40 state-specific studies covering the period 1996 up to 2000, the approximate average yield impact was +11%. The lower of these 2 values was used for the period to 2002. The higher values applied from 2003 reflect values used by Sankala & Blumenthal (2006) and Johnson & Strom (2008) that take into account the increasing use of Bollgard II technology, and draws on work by Mullins & Hudson (2004) that identified a yield gain of +12% relative to conventional cotton. The values applied 2005 onwards were adjusted downwards to reflect the fact that some of the GM IR cotton area has still been planted to Bollgard I	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield and updated from 2008 based on industry sources (for the estimated share of the insect resistance trait in the total seed premia for stacked traited seed	As identified in yield study references and in subsequent years adjusted to reflect broad cost of ‘foregone’ insecticide use
China	+8% 1997–2001 +10% 2002 onwards	Average of studies used to 2001. Increase to 10% on basis of industry assessments of impact and reporting of unpublished work by Schuchan	Pray et al. (2002) surveyed farm level impact for the years 1999–2001 and identified yield impacts of +5.8% in 1999, +8% in 2000 and +10.9% in 2001 Monsanto China personal communications (2007–2014)	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield
Australia	None	Studies have usually identified no significant average yield gain	Fitt (2001) Doyle (2005) James (2002) CSIRO (2005)	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield covering earlier years of adoption, then CSIRO for later years. For 2006–2009 cost of technology values confirmed by personal communication from Monsanto Australia	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield covering earlier years of adoption, then CSIRO for later years
Argentina	+30% all years	More conservative of the 2 pieces of research used	Qaim & De Janvry (2002 and 2005) analysis based on farm level analysis in 1999/00 and 2000/01 +35% yield gain, Trigo & Cap (2006) used an average gain of +30% based on work by Elena (2001)	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield. Cost of technology all years based on industry sources	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield and cost of technology.
South Africa	+24% all years	Lower end of estimates applied	Ismael et al. (2001) identified yield gain of +24% for the years 1998/99 and 1999/2000. Kirsten et al. (2002) for 2000/01 season found a range of +14% (dry crops/large farms) to +49% (small farmers) James (2002) also cited a range of impact between +27% and +48% during the years 1999–2001	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield. Values for cost of technology and cost of insecticide cost savings also provided/confirmed from industry sources	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield.
Mexico	+37% 1996 +3% 1997 +20% 1998 +27% 1999 +17% 2000 +9% 2001 +6.7% 2002 +6.4% 2003 +7.6% 2004 +9.25% 2005 +9% 2006 +9.28 2007 and 2008, +14.2% 2009, +10.34% 2010 and 2011, +7.2% 2012, +8.95% 2013	Recorded yield impact data used as available for almost all years	The yield impact data for 1997 and 1998 is drawn from the findings of farm level survey work by Traxler et al. (2001). For all other years the data is based on the annual crop monitoring reports submitted to the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture by Monsanto Mexico	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield. 2009 onwards seed cost based on weighted average of single and stacked traited seed sales	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield.
India	+45% 2002 +63% 2003 +54% 2004 +64% 2005 +50% 2006 and 2007 +40% 2008, +35% 2009 and 2010, +30% 2011, +24% 2012	Recorded yield impact used for years where available	Yield impact data 2002 and 2003 is drawn from Bennett et al. (2004), for 2004 the average of 2002 and 2003 was used. 2005 and 2006 are derived from IMRB (2006 and 2007). 2007 impact databased on lower end of range of impacts identified in previous 3 y (2007 being a year of similar pest pressure to 2006). 2008 onwards based on assessments of general levels of pest pressure Industry sources), Herring and Rao (2012) and Kathage, Jonas and Qaim (2012)	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield. 2007 onwards cost of technology based on industry sources	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield. 2007 onwards cost savings based on industry estimates and AMIS Global pesticide usage data (2011)
Brazil	+6.23% 2006 -3.6% 2007 -2.7% 2008, -3.8% 2009, 2010 nil 2011 +3.04%, 2012 and 2013 -1.8%	Recorded yield impacts for each year – 2013 not available so 2012 value assumed	2006 unpublished farm survey data – source: Monsanto (2008) 2007- 2010 farm survey data from Galveo (2009, 2010, 2012, 2013))	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield
Colombia	+30% all years except 2009 +15%, 2010 +10%	Farm survey 2007 comparing performance of GM IR vs. conventional growers. 2009 onwards based on trade estimates	Based on Zambrano P et al. (2009) and trade estimates (2009 , 2011, 2013)	Assumed as Mexico – no breakdown of seed premium provided in Zambrano et al. (2009). From 2008 based on weighted cost of seed sold as single and stacked traits	Data derived from Zambrano et al. (2009). Cost savings excluding seed premium derived from Zambrano as total cost savings less assumed seed premium. 2010 onwards seed premium and cost savings from industry sources
Burkina Faso	+20 2008, +18.9% 2009 onwards	Trials 2008, farm survey 2009	Vitale et al. (2008) & Vitale (2010)	Based on Vitale et al. (2008) and Vitale (2010)	Based on Vitale et al. (2008) and Vitale (2010)
Pakistan	+12.6% 2009, 2010 onwards +22%	Farm surveys	Nazli et al. (2010), Kouser and Qaim (2013)	Based on data from same sources as yield impacts	Based on data from same sources as yield impacts
Burma	+30%	Extension service estimates	USDA (2011)	No data available so based on India and Pakistan	No data available so based on Pakistan
GM HT soybeans	Yield impact assumption used	Rationale	Yield references	Cost of technology data/assumptions	Cost savings (excluding impact of seed premium) assumptions
US: 1^st generation	Nil	Not relevant	Not relevant	Marra et al. (2002) Carpenter & Gianessi (2002) Sankala & Blumenthal (2000 and 2006) Johnson & Strom (2008) and updated post 2008 from industry estimates of seed premia	Marra et al. (2002) Carpenter & Gianessi (2002^) Sankala & Blumenthal (2000 and 2006) Johnson & Strom (2008) and updated post 2008 to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
Canada: 1^st generation	Nil	Not relevant	Not relevant	George Morris Centre (2004) and updated from 2008 based on industry estimates of seed premia	George Morris Centre (2004) and updated for 2008 to reflect herbicide price changes
US & Canada: 2^nd generation	+5% 2009 and 2010, +10.4% 2011, +11.2% 2012, +11% 2013	Farm level monitoring and farmer feedback	Monsanto farmer surveys (annual)	Industry estimates of seed premia relative to 1^st generation GM HT seed	as 1^st generation
Argentina	Nil but second crop benefits	Not relevant except 2^nd crop – see separate table	Not relevant	Qaim & Traxler (2005), Trigo & CAP (2006) and 2006 onwards (Monsanto royalty rate)	Qaim & Traxler (2005), Trigo & CAP (2006) and updated from 2008 to reflect herbicide price changes
Brazil	Nil	Not relevant	Not relevant	As Argentina to 2002 (illegal plantings). Then based on Parana Department of Agriculture (2004). Also agreed royalty rates from 2004 applied to all years to 2006. 2007 onwards based on Galveo (2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013)	Sources as in cost of technology
Paraguay	Nil but second crop benefits	Not relevant except 2^nd crop	Not relevant	As Argentina: no country-specific analysis identified. Impacts confirmed from industry sources (annual personal communications 2006–2012). Seed cost based on royalty rate since 2007	As Argentina – herbicide cost differences adjusted post 2008 based on industry sources and AMIS Global herbicide usage data 2011, 2013
South Africa	Nil	Not relevant	Not relevant	No studies identified. Seed premia based on industry sources (annually updated)	No studies identified. Based on industry estimates (annually updated) and AMIS Global herbicide usage data 2011, 2013
Uruguay	Nil	Not relevant	Not relevant	As Argentina: no country-specific analysis identified. Seed premia based on industry sources	As Argentina: no country-specific analysis identified. Impacts based on industry sources and AMIS Global herbicide usage data 2011, 2013
Mexico	+9.1% 2004 and2005 +3.64% 2006 +3.2% 2007 +2.4% 2008 +13% 2009, +4% 2010–2–12, +9.9% 2013	Recorded yield impact from studies	From Monsanto annual monitoring reports submitted to Ministry of Agriculture	No published studies identified based on Monsanto annual monitoring reports	No published studies identified based on Monsanto annual monitoring reports
Romania	+31% , 15% 2006	Based on only available study covering 1999–2003 (note not grown in 2007) plus 2006 farm survey	For previous year – based on Brookes (2005) – the only published source identified. Also, Monsanto Romania (2007)	Brookes (2005) Monsanto Romania (2007)	Brookes (2005) Monsanto Romania (2007)
Bolivia	+15%	Based on survey in 2007–08	Fernandez et al. (2009) farm survey	Fernandez et al. (2009)	Fernandez et al. (2009)
GM HT & IR soybeans
Brazil	+10%	Farm trials	Monsanto farm trials on commercial crop monitoring (survey)	As yield source	As yield source
Argentina	+9.1%	Farm trials	Monsanto farm trials on commercial crop monitoring (survey)	As yield source	As yield source
Paraguay	+12.8%	Farm trials	Monsanto farm trials on commercial crop monitoring (survey)	As yield source	As yield source
Uruguay	+8.8%	Farm trials	Monsanto farm trials on commercial crop monitoring (survey)	As yield source	As yield source
GM HT corn	Yield impact assumption used	Rationale	Yield references	Cost of technology data/assumptions	Cost savings (excluding impact of seed premium) assumptions
US	Nil	Not relevant	Not relevant	Carpenter & Gianessi (2002) Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006) Johnson & Strom (2008). 2008 and 2009 onwards based on weighted seed sales (sold as single and stacked traits)	Carpenter & Gianessi (2002) Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006) Johnson & Strom (2008). 2009 onwards updated to reflect changes in common herbicide treatments and prices
Canada	Nil	Not relevant	Not relevant	No studies identified – based on annual personal communications with industry sources	No studies identified – based on industry and extension service estimates of herbicide regimes and updated since 2008 on the basis of changes in herbicide price changes
Argentina: sold as single trait	+3% corn belt +22% marginal areas	Based on only available analysis - Corn Belt = 70% of plantings, marginal areas 30% - industry analysis (note no significant plantings until 2006)	No studies identified – based on personal communications with industry sources in 2007 and 2008 Monsanto Argentina & Grupo CEO (personal communications 2007, 2008 and 2011)	Industry estimates of seed premia and weighted by seed sales according to whether containing single or stacked traits	No studies identified - based on Monsanto Argentina & Grupo CEO (personal communications 2007 and 2008). 2008 and 2009 updated to reflect herbicide price changes
Argentina: sold as stacked trait	+10.25%	Farmer level feedback to seed suppliers	Unpublished farm level survey feedback to Monsanto: +15.75% yield impact overall – for purposes of this analysis, 5.5% allocated to IR trait and balance to HT trait	As single trait	As single trait
South Africa	Nil	Not relevant	Not relevant	Industry sources – annual checked	No studies identified - based on Monsanto S Africa (personal communications 2005, 2007 and 2008). 2008 onwards updated to reflect herbicide price changes
Philippines	+15% 2006 and 2007, +5% 2008 and 2009	Farm survey	Based on unpublished industry analysis for 2006 and 2007, thereafter Gonsales (2009)	Monsanto Philippines (personal communications 2007 and 2008). Gonsales (2009). 2010 updated to reflect changes in seed costs	Monsanto Philippines (personal communications 2007 and 2008). Gonsales (2009). 2010 onwards updated annually to reflect changes in herbicide costs
Brazil	+2.5% 2010 +3.6% 2011. +6.84% 2012 and 2013	Farm survey	Galveo (2010, 2012 and 2013). No data yet available for 2013 so 2012 impacts assumed	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield plus AMIS Global herbicide use data
Colombia	Zero	Mendez et al. (2011)	Mendez et al. (2011) farm survey from 2009	Mendez et al. (2011)	Mendez et al. (2011)
Uruguay	Zero	Not relevant	Not relevant	No studies available – based on Argentina	No studies available – based on Argentina plus annual AMIS Global herbicide use data
Paraguay	Zero	Not relevant	Not relevant	No studies available – based on Argentina	No studies available – based on Argentina plus annual AMIS Global herbicide use data
GM HT Cotton	Yield impact assumption used	Rationale	Yield references	Cost of technology data/assumptions	Cost savings (excluding impact of seed premium) assumptions
US	Nil	Not relevant	Not relevant	Carpenter & Gianessi) Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006) Johnson & Strom (2008) and updated from 2008 based on weighted seed sales (by single and stacked traited seed)	Carpenter & Gianessi) Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006) Johnson S & Strom S (2008) and updated from 2008 to reflect changes in weed control practices and prices of herbicides
Australia	Nil	Not relevant	Not relevant	Doyle et al. (2003) Monsanto Australia (personal communications 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012)	Doyle et al. (2003) Monsanto Australia (personal communications 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012)
South Africa	Nil	Not relevant	Not relevant	No studies identified - based on Monsanto S Africa (personal communications 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012)	No studies identified - based on Monsanto S Africa (personal communications 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012)
Argentina	Nil on area using farm saved seed, +9.3% on area using certified seed	Based on only available data – company monitoring of commercial plots	No studies identified – based on personal communications with Grupo CEO and Monsanto Argentina (2007, 2008, 2012)	No published studies identified – based on personal communications with Grupo CEO and Monsanto Argentina (2007, 2008 and 2010 and 2012)	No published studies identified – based on personal communications with Grupo CEO and Monsanto Argentina (2007, 2008 and 2010, 2012, 2013)
Mexico	+3.6% all years to 2007 0% 2008, +5.11% 2009, +18.1% 2010, +5.1% 2011, +13.1% 2012, +14.2% 2013	Based on annual monitoring reports to Ministry of Agriculture by Monsanto Mexico	Same as source for cost data	No published studies identified - based on personal communications with Monsanto Mexico and their annual reporting	No published studies identified - based on annual personal communications with Monsanto Mexico and their annual reporting
Colombia	+4%	Based on only available data – company monitoring of commercial plots	As cost data	No published studies identified – based on personal communications with Monsanto Colombia (2010, 2012, 2013)	No published studies identified – based on personal communications with Monsanto Colombia (2010, 2012, 2013)
Brazil	+2.35% 2010 +3.1% 2011, -1.8% 2012 and 2013	Farm survey	Galveo (2010, 2012 and 2013). No data yet available so 2012 yield impact assumed for 2013	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield	Data derived from the same sources referred to for yield
GM HT canola	Yield impact assumption used	Rationale	Yield references	Cost of technology data/assumptions	Cost savings (excluding impact of seed premium) assumptions
US	+6% all years to 2004. Post 2004 based on Canada – see below	Based on the only identified impact analysis – post 2004 based on Canadian impacts as same alternative (conventional HT) technology to Canada available	Same as for cost data	Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006)) Johnson & Strom (2008). These are the only studies identified that examine GM HT canola in the US. Updated based on industry and extension service estimates	Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006)) Johnson & Strom (2008). These are the only studies identified that examine GM HT canola in the US. Updated since 2008 based on changes in herbicide prices
Canada	+10.7% all years to 2004. Post 2004; for GM glyphosate tolerant varieties no yield difference 2004, 2005, 2008, 2010 +4% 2006 and 2007, +1.67% 2009, +1.6% 2011, +1.5% 2012, +3.1% 2013. For GM glufosinate tolerant varieties: +12% 2004, +19% 2005, +10% 2006 and 2007 +12% 2008 +11.8% 2009, +10.9% 2010, +4.6% 2011, +4.8% 2012, +10.1% 2013	After 2004 based on differences between average annual variety trial results for Clearfields (non GM herbicide tolerant varieties) and GM alternatives. GM alternatives differentiated into glyphosate tolerant and glufosinate tolerant	Same as for cost data	Based on Canola Council (2001) to 2003 then adjusted to reflect main current non GM (HT) alternative of ‘Clearfields’ – data derived from personal communications with the Canola Council (2008) plus Gusta et al. (2009)	Based on Canola Council (2001) to 2003 then adjusted to reflect main current non GM (HT) alternative of ‘Clearfields’ – data derived from personal communications with the Canola Council (2008) plus Gusta et al. (2009) which includes spillover benefits of $ Can13.49 to follow on crops – applied from 2006. Also adjusted annually to reflect changes in typical herbicides used on different crops (GM HT, conventional, clearfields)
Australia	+21.08% 2008, +20.9% 2009, +15.8% 2010, +7.6% 2011 and 2012	Survey based with average yield gain based on weighting yield gains for different types of seed by seed sales or number of farmers using different seed types	Based on survey of license holders by Monsanto Australia, Fischer and Tozer (2009) and Hudson (2013)	Sources as for yield changes	Sources as for yield changes
GM HT sugar beet
US & Canada	+12.58% 2007 +2.8% 2008 +3.3% 2009 onwards	Farm survey and extension service analysis	Kniss (2008) Khan (2008)	Kniss (2008) Khan (2008),	Kniss (2008) Khan (2008), Jon-Joseph et al. (2010) and updated annually to reflect changes in herbicide usage and prices
GM VR crops US
Papaya	between +15% and +77% 1999–2012 – relative to base yield of 22.86 t/ha	Based on average yield in 3 y before first use	Draws on only published source disaggregating to this aspect of impact	Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006), Johnson & Strom (2008)	Nil – no effective conventional method of protection
Squash	+100% on area planted	assumes virus otherwise destroys crop on planted area	Draws on only published source disaggregating to this aspect of impact	Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006), Johnson & Strom (2008)	Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006), Johnson & Strom (2008) and updating of these from 2008

Readers should note that the assumptions are drawn from the references cited supplemented and updated by industry sources (where the authors have not been able to identify specific studies). This has been particularly of relevance for some of the herbicide tolerant traits more recently adopted in several developing countries. Accordingly, the authors are grateful to industry sources which have provided information on impact, (notably on cost of the technology and impact on costs of crop protection). While this information does not derive from detailed studies, the authors are confident that it is reasonably representative of average impacts; in fact in a number of cases, information provided from industry sources via personal communications has suggested levels of average impact that are lower than that identified in independent studies. Where this has occurred, the more conservative (industry source) data has been used.

Brookes G. The farm level impact of using Roundup Ready soybeans in Romania. Agbioforum 2005; 8(4):235–241. www.agbioforum.org.

 Google Scholar

Monsanto Romania. Unpublished results of farmer survey amongst soybean growers in 2006. 2007.

 Google Scholar

Qaim M, Traxler G. Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level & aggregate welfare effects, Agricultural Economics 2005; 32(1):73-86; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00006.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Trigo E, Cap E. Ten years of GM crops in Argentine Agriculture. ArgenBio; 2006.

 Google Scholar

Parana Department of Agriculture. Cost of production comparison: biotech and conventional soybeans, in USDA GAIN report, 2004, BR4629 of 11 November 2004. www.fas.usad.gov/gainfiles/200411/146118108.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of insect resistant corn and herbicide tolerant soybeans in Brazil, 2010, Celeres, Brazil. www.celeres.co.br.

 Google Scholar

Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of GM crops in Brazil 2012, Celeres, Brazil. www.celeres.co.br.

 Google Scholar

Marra M, Pardey P, Alston J. The pay-offs of agricultural biotechnology: an assessment of the evidence. Washington, USA: Taylor & Francis; 2002.

 Google Scholar

Carpenter J, Gianessi L. Agricultural Biotechnology: updated benefit estimates. Washington, USA: Taylor & Francis; 2002.

 Google Scholar

Sankala S, Blumenthal E. Impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2003- an update of eleven case studies, Washington: Taylor & Francis. Available at: www.ncfap.org.

 Google Scholar

Sankala S, Blumenthal E. Impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2005- an update of eleven case studies. Washington: Taylor & Francis. Available at: www.ncfap.org.

 Google Scholar

Johnson S, Strom S. Quantification of the impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2006. Washington: Taylor & Francis. Available at: www.ncfap.org.

 Google Scholar

George Morris Centre. Economic & environmental impacts of the commercial cultivation of glyphosate tolerant soybeans in Ontario. Unpublished report for Monsanto Canada; 2004.

 Google Scholar

Mendez K, Chaparro Giraldo A, Reyes Moreno G, Silva Castro C. Production cost analysis and use of pesticides in the transgenic and conventional crop in the valley of San Juan (Colombia), GM Crops 2011; 2(3):163-168.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Gonsales L. Modern Biotechnology and Agriculture: a history of the commercialisation of biotechnology maize in the Philippines. Los Banos, Philippines: Taylor & Francis, 2009. ISBN 978-971-91904-8-6.

 Google Scholar

Doyle B. The Performance of Roundup Ready cotton 2001-2002 in the Australian cotton sector. Armidale, Australia: Taylor & Francis; 2003.

 Google Scholar

Canola Council of Canada. An agronomic & economic assessment of transgenic canola, Taylor & Francis, Canada. 2001. Available at: www.canola-council.org.

 Google Scholar

Gusta M. Economic benefits of GMHT canola for producers. 2009. College of Biotechnology Working Paper, University of Saskatchewan.

 Google Scholar

Hudson D. Evaluation of agronomic, environmental, economic and co-existence impacts following the introduction of GM canola in Australia 2010-2012. Paper presented to the 2012 GMCC conference, Lisbon, Portugal, November 2013.

 Google Scholar

Khan M. Roundup Ready sugar beet in America. British Sugar Beet Review Winter 2008; 76(4): 16-19.

 Google Scholar

Jon-Joseph A Q, Sprague CL. Weed management in wide-and narrow-row glyphosate resistant sugar beet. Weed Technology 2010; 24: 523-528; http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-10-00033.1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hutchison W, Burkness E, Mitchell P, Moon R, Leslie T, Fleicher S, Abrahamson M, Hamilton K, Steffey K, Gray M, et al. Area-wide suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-bt maize growers. Science, 2010, Vol 330, 222-225. www.sciencemag.org; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1190242.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rice M. Transgenic rootworm corn: Assessing potential agronomic, economic and environmental benefits. Plant Health Progress 2004; 10,094/php-2001-0301-01-RV.

 Google Scholar

Mullins W, Hudson J. Bollgard II versus Bollgard sister line economic comparisons. 2004 Beltwide cotton conferences, San Antonio, USA; Jan 2004.

 Google Scholar

Pray C, Hunag J, Hu R, Roselle S. Five years of Bt cotton in China – the benefits continue. The Plant Journal 2002; 31(4): 423-430; PMID:12182701; http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01401.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ismael Y, Bennet R, Morse S. Benefits of bt cotton use by smallholder farmers in South Africa. Agbioforum 2002; 5(1): 1-5.

 Google Scholar

James C. Global review of commercialized transgenic crops 2002: feature Bt maize. ISAAA 2003; No 29.

 Google Scholar

Trigo E. Genetically modified crops in Argentina agriculture: An opened story. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Libros del Zorzal; 2002.

 Google Scholar

Qaim M, De Janvry A. Bt cotton in Argentina: Analysing adoption and farmers willingness to pay. California: Taylor & Francis; 2002.

 Google Scholar

Qaim M, De Janvry A. Bt cotton and pesticide use in Argentina: economic and environmental effects. Environment and Development Economics 2005; 10: 179-200; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X04001883

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gonsales L. Harnessing the benefits of biotechnology: the case of Bt corn in the Philippines. Laguna, Philippines: Taylor & Francis; 2005.

 Google Scholar

Yorobe J. Economics impact of Bt corn in the Philippines. Paper presented to the 45^th PAEDA Convention, Querzon City; 2004.

 Google Scholar

Ramon G. Acceptability survey on the 80-20 bag in a bag insect resistance management strategy for Bt corn. Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines (BCP); 2005.

 Google Scholar

Brookes G. The farm level impact of using Bt maize in Spain. ICABR conference paper. Ravello, Italy; 2003.

 Google Scholar

Gomez-Barbero and Rodriguez-Cereozo. The adoption of GM insect-resistant Bt maize in Spain: An empirical approach. 10^th ICABR conference on agricultural biotechnology, Ravello, Italy; July 2006.

 Google Scholar

Riesgo L, Areal F, Rodriguez-Cerezo E. How can specific market demand for non GM maize affect the profitability of Bt and conventional maize? A case study for the middle Ebro Valley, Spain. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2012; 10(4): 867-876; http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2012104-448-11

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bennett R, Ismael Y, Kambhampati U, Morse S. Economic impacts of GM cotton in India. AgBioforum 2004; 7(3).

 Google Scholar

IMRB. Socio-economic benefits of Bollgard and product satisfaction (in India). Mumbai, India: IMRB International; 2006.

 Google Scholar

IMRB. Socio-economic benefits of Bollgard and product satisfaction (in India). Mumbai, India: Taylor & Francis; 2007.

 Google Scholar

Herring R, Rao C. On the 'failure of Bt cotton': Analysing a decade of experience. Economic and Political Weekly 2012; XLVII(18).

 Google Scholar

Fernandez W, Paz R, Zambrano P, Zepeda JF. GM soybeans in Bolivia. Paper presented to the 13^th ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy, June 2009.

 Google Scholar

Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of insect resistant cotton in Brazil, 2009 and 2010, Celeres, Brazil. Available at: www.celeres.co.br.

 Google Scholar

Nazli H, Sarker R, Meilke K, Orden D. Economic performance of Bt cotton varieties in Pakistan. Conference paper at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association 2010 AAEA, CAES and WACA Joint Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, USA; 2010.

 Google Scholar

Kouser S, Qaim M. Valuing financial, health and environmental benefits of Bt cotton in Pakistan. Agricultural Economics 2013; 44:323-335; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12014

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

USDA. New technologies aiding Burmese cotton farmers, GAIN report BM 0025 of 14th January 2011.

 Google Scholar

Doyle B. The performance of Ingard and Bollgard II Cotton in Australia during the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 seasons. Armidale, Australia: Taylor & Francis; 2005.

 Google Scholar

James C. Global review of commercialized transgenic crops 2001: Feature Bt cotton. ISAAA No 26; 2002.

 Google Scholar

CSIRO. The cotton consultants Australia 2005 Bollgard II comparison report. Australia: Taylor & Francis.

 Google Scholar

Fitt G. Deployment and impact of transgenic Bt cotton in Australia, reported in James C (2001). Global review of commercialised transgenic crops: 2001 feature: Bt cotton. ISAAA; 2010.

 Google Scholar

Van der Weld W. Final report on the adoption of GM maize in South Africa for the 2008/09 season. South African Maize Trust, 2009.

 Google Scholar

Gouse M, Pray C, Kirsten J, Schimmelpfennig D. A GM subsistence crop in Africa: The case of Bt white maize in S Africa. Int Journal Biotechnology 2005; 7( 1/2/3); http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBT.2005.006447.

 Google Scholar

Brookes G. The benefits of adopting GM insect resistant (Bt) maize in the EU: First results from 1998-2006. International Journal of Biotechnology 2008; 10(2–3):148–166.

 Google Scholar

Kirsten J, Gouse M. Bt cotton in South Africa: adoption and the impact on farm incomes amongst small-scale and large-scale farmers, ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy; 2002.

 Google Scholar

Monsanto Australia. Survey of herbicide tolerant canola licence holders 2008. Unpublished paper.

 Google Scholar

Zambrano P. Insect resistant cotton in Colombia: Impact on farmers. Paper presented to the 13^th ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy; 2009.

 Google Scholar