Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions

Figures & data

TABLE 1. GM HT soybean: Summary of active ingredient usage and associated EIQ changes 1996—2015.

Country	Change in active ingredient use (million kg)	% change in amount of active ingredient used	% change in EIQ indicator
Romania (to 2006 only)	−0.02	−2.1	−10.5
Argentina	+11.3	+1.2	−8.6
Brazil	+33.7	+3.2	−6.4
US	−32.7	−3.2	−23.3
Canada	−2.8	−7.7	−23.6
Paraguay	+4.2	+5.9	−6.1
Uruguay	+0.83	+3.2	−6.8
South Africa	−0.48	−6.8	−21.5
Mexico	−0.02	−0.9	−4.2
Bolivia	+1.3	+5.8	−4.3
Aggregate impact: all countries	+15.3	+0.5	−13.9

Notes: Negative sign = reduction in usage or EIQ improvement. Positive sign = increase in usage or worse EIQ value

TABLE 2. GM HT maize: Summary of active ingredient usage and associated EIQ changes 1996—2015.

Country	Change in active ingredient use (million kg)	% change in amount of active ingredient used	% change in EIQ indicator
US	−204.4	−9.9	−13.7
Canada	−10.2	−17.3	−20.6
Argentina	−0.6	−0.6	−6.7
South Africa	−2.7	−2.5	−6.8
Brazil	−8.1	−2.6	−8.9
Uruguay	−0.02	−0.2	−9.3
Aggregate impact: all countries	−226.3	−8.4	−12.7

Notes:

1. Negative sign = reduction in usage or EIQ improvement. Positive sign = increase in usage or worse EIQ value

2. Other countries using GM HT maize – Colombia, Paraguay and the Philippines, not included due to lack of data. Also, hand weeding is likely to be an important form of weed control in the Philippines suggesting any reduction in herbicide use with GM HT maize has been limited

TABLE 3. GM HT cotton: Summary of active ingredient usage and associated EIQ changes 1996—2015.

Country	Change in active ingredient use (million kg)	% change in amount of active ingredient used	% change in EIQ indicator
US	−17.14	−5.9	−8.1
South Africa	+0.01	+1.0	−7.7
Australia	−2.94	−15.5	−20.9
Argentina	−5.0	−27.6	−30.7
Aggregate impact: all countries	−25.07	−7.6	−10.2

Notes:

1. Negative sign = reduction in usage or EIQ improvement. Positive sign = increase in usage or worse EIQ value

2. Other countries using GM HT cotton – Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, not included due to lack of data

TABLE 4. Other GM HT crops: Summary of active ingredient usage and associated EIQ changes 1996—2015.

Country	Change in active ingredient use (million kg)	% change in amount of active ingredient used	% change in EIQ indicator
GM HT canola
US	−3.1	−33.5	−46.5
Canada	−21.1	−19.8	−32.4
Australia	−0.8	−3.5	−3.0
Aggregate impact: all countries	−25	−18.1	−29.9
GM HT sugar beet
US and Canada	+1.8	+25	−0.9

Notes:

1. Negative sign = reduction in usage or EIQ improvement. Positive sign = increase in usage or worse EIQ value

2. 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

3. 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

4. GM HT alfalfa is also grown in the US. The changes in herbicide use and associated environmental impacts from use of this technology is not included due to a lack of available data on herbicide use in alfalfa

TABLE 5. GM IR maize: Summary of active ingredient usage and associated EIQ changes 1996—2015.

Country	Change in active ingredient use (million kg)	% change in amount of active ingredient used	% change in EIQ indicator
US	−65.9	−47.8	−50.9
Canada	−0.71	−92.2	−65.1
Spain	−0.58	−36.4	−20.7
South Africa	−1.8	−68.1	−68.1
Brazil	−17.9	−88.6	−88.6
Colombia	−0.18	−66.3	−66.3
Aggregate impact: all countries	−87.1	−53.3	−57.7

Notes:

1. Negative sign = reduction in usage or EIQ improvement. Positive sign = increase in usage or worse EIQ value

2. Other countries using GM IR maize – Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Honduras and the Philippines, not included due to lack of data and/or little or no history of using insecticides to control various pests

3. % change in active ingredient usage and field EIQ values relates to insecticides typically used to target lepidopteran pests (and rootworm in the US and Canada) only. Some of these active ingredients are, however, sometimes used to control to other pests that the GM IR technology does not target

TABLE 6. GMIR cotton: Summary of active ingredient usage and associated EIQ changes 1996—2015.

Country	Change in active ingredient use (million kg)	% change in amount of active ingredient used	% change in EIQ indicator
US	−19.5	−24.9	−19.6
China	−127.4	−30.7	−30.5
Australia	−18.3	−33.4	−34.5
India	−99.3	−28.6	−36.7
Mexico	−1.9	−13.4	−13.2
Argentina	−1.3	−18.1	−25.7
Brazil	−1.0	−11.8	−15.7
Aggregate impact: all countries	−268.6	−29.1	−31.5

Notes:

1. Negative sign = reduction in usage or EIQ improvement. Positive sign = increase in usage or worse EIQ value

2. Other countries using GM IR cotton – Colombia, Burkina Faso, Paraguay, Pakistan and Myanmar not included due to lack of data

3. % change in active ingredient usage and field EIQ values relates to all insecticides (as bollworm/budworm pests are the main category of cotton pests worldwide). Some of these active ingredients are, however, sometimes used to control to other pests that that the GM IR technology does not target

TABLE 7. Carbon storage/sequestration from reduced fuel use with GM crops 2015.

Crop/trait/country	Fuel saving (million liters)	Permanent carbon dioxide savings arising from reduced fuel use (million kg of carbon dioxide)	Permanent fuel savings: as average family car equivalents removed from the road for a year (‘000s)
US: GM HT soybean	198	528	235
Canada: GM HT soybeans	18	47	21
Argentina: GM HT soybean	277	739	329
Brazil GM HR soybean	188	501	223
Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay: GM HT soybean	64	170	75
US: GM HT maize	145	387	172
Canada: GM HT maize	7	19	8
Canada: GM HT canola	71	191	85
Global GM IR cotton	13	35	16
Brazil IR maize	31	83	37
Us/Canada/Spain/South Africa: IR maize	4	11	5
South America: IR soybeans	40	108	48
Total	1,056	2,819	1,254

Notes:

1. Assumption: an average family car produces 150 g of carbon dioxide per km. A car does an average of 15,000 km/year and therefore produces 2,250 kg of carbon dioxide/year

2. GM IR cotton. Burkina Faso, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and China excluded because insecticides assumed to be applied by hand, using back pack sprayers

TABLE 8. Context of carbon sequestration impact 2015: Car equivalents.

Crop/trait/country	Additional carbon stored in soil (million kg of carbon)	Potential additional soil carbon sequestration savings (million kg of carbon dioxide)	Soil carbon sequestration savings: as average family car equivalents removed from the road for a year (‘000s)
US: GM HT soybean	774	2,840	1,262
Canada: GM HT soybeans	67	247	110
Argentina: GM HT soybean	2,043	7,496	3,332
Brazil GM HR soybean	1,385	5,082	2,259
Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay: GM HT soybean	469	1,722	765
US: GM HT maize	1,497	5,495	2,442
Canada: GM HT maize	15	54	24
Canada: GM HT canola	263	964	428
Global GM IR cotton	0	0	0
Brazil IR maize	0	0	0
Us/Canada/Spain/South Africa: IR maize	0	0	0
South America: IR soybeans (included in HT soybeans above)	0	0	0
Total	6,513	23,900	10,622

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Maximum area treated for stalk boring pests: pre-GM IR (‘000 ha)	Average ai use GM crop (kg/ha)	Average ai use if conventional (kg/ha)	Average field EIQ/ha GM crop	Average field EIQ/ha if conventional	Aggregate change in ai use (‘000 kg)	Aggregate change in field EIQ/ha units (millions)
US	26,470	3,268	0.23	0.58	12.8	22.8	−1,144	−32.7
Canada	999	61	0.04	0.64	4.8	24.8	−39	−1.0
Argentina	2,595	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Philippines	645	Very low – assumed zero	0	0	0	0	0	0
South Africa	2,388	1,768	0	0.08	0	3.8	−165	−6.0
Spain	108	43.9	0.36	1.32	0.9	26.9	−36.8	−0.99
Uruguay	71	Assumed to be zero: as Argentina	0	0	0	0	0	0
Brazil	12,383	7,562	0 targeted at stalk boring pests	0.36 targeted at stalk boring pests	0 targeting stalk boring pests	21.5	−2,692	−162
Colombia	68	48	0 targeted at stalk boring pests	0.56 targeted at stalk boring pests	0 targeting stalk boring pests	15.9	−27	−0.76

Notes:

1. Other countries: Honduras, Paraguay and EU countries: not examined due to lack of data (Honduras and Paraguay) or very small area planted (EU countries other than Spain)

2. Baseline amount of insecticide active ingredient shown in Canada refers only to insecticides used primarily to control stalk boring pests

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Maximum area treated for rootworm pests: pre GM IR (‘000 ha)	Average ai use GM crop (kg/ha)	Average ai use if conventional (kg/ha)	Average field EIQ/ha GM crop	Average field EIQ/ha if conventional	Aggregate change in ai use (‘000 kg)	Aggregate change in field EIQ/ha units (millions)
US	15,816	9,183	0.2	0.6	12	32.5	−3,673	−188.3

Note:

1. There are no Canadian-specific data available: analysis has therefore not been included for the Canadian crop of 695,000 ha planted to seed containing GM IR traits targeted at rootworm pests

2. The maximum area treated for corn rootworm (on which the insecticide use change is based) is based on the historic area treated with insecticides targeted at the corn rootworm. This is 30% of the total crop area. The 2015 maximum area on which this calculation is made has been reduced by 620,450 ha to reflect the increased use of soil-based insecticides (relative to usage in a baseline period of 2008–2010) that target the corn rootworm on the GM IR (targeting corn rootworm) area. It is assumed this increase in usage is in response to farmer concerns about the possible development of CRW resistance to the GM IR rootworm technology that has been reported in a small area in the US

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Average ai use GM crop (kg/ha)	Average ai use if conventional (kg/ha)	Average field EIQ/ha GM crop	Average field EIQ/ha if conventional	Aggregate change in ai use (‘000 kg)	Aggregate change in field EIQ/ha units (millions)
US	2,693	0.85	1.79	27.68	47.58	−2,533	−53.6
China	2,976	2.10	2.98	87.0	106.4	−3,780	−97.8
Australia	253	0.91	2.1	25.0	65.0	−301	−10.1
Mexico	118	3.60	5.22	120.4	177.0	−192	−6.7
Argentina	377	0.7	2.42	19.9	76.7	−123	−8.7
India	11,305	0.63	1.77	18.8	74.8	−12,235	−632.8
Brazil	497	0.41	0.736	15.1	38.2	−155	−11

Notes:

1. Due to the widespread and regular nature of bollworm and budworm pest problems in cotton crops, GM IR areas planted are assumed to be equal to the area traditionally receiving some form of conventional insecticide treatment

2. South Africa, Burkina Faso, Columbia, Pakistan and Myanmar not included in analysis due to lack of data on insecticide use changes

3. Brazil: due to a lack of data, usage patterns from Argentina have been assumed

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Average ai use GM crop (kg/ha)	Average ai use if conventional (kg/ha)	Average field EIQ/ha GM crop	Average field EIQ/ha if conventional	Aggregate change in ai use (‘000 kg)	Aggregate change in field EIQ/ha units (millions)
US	31,136	2.397	2.399	40.88	47.52	−75	−206.8
Canada	1,861	1.32	1.43	20.9	34.2	−205	−24.8
Argentina	19,303	3.59	3.23	55.46	55.84	+7,000	−7.49
Brazil	31,300	2.59	2.53	40.6	47.4	+1,932	−211.0
Paraguay	3,196	3.57	3.3	44.43	51.84	+866	−24.0
South Africa	478	1.08	1.46	16.6	27.11	−183	−5.0
Uruguay	1,000	2.98	2.82	47.5	48.7	+163	−1.2
Bolivia	1,024	3.18	3.03	50.6	51.8	+277	−7.6
Mexico	18	1.62	1.76	24.8	41.0	−3	−0.3

Notes: Due to lack of country-specific data, usage patterns in Paraguay assumed for Bolivia and usage patterns in Argentina assumed for Uruguay. Industry sources confirm this assumption reasonably reflects typical usage

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Average ai use GM crop (kg/ha)	Average ai use if conventional (kg/ha)	Average field EIQ/ha GM crop	Average field EIQ/ha if conventional	Aggregate change in ai use (‘000 kg)	Aggregate change in field EIQ/ha units (millions)
Brazil	11,800	1.43	1.6	30.65	47.9	−2,035	−203.6
Paraguay	200	1.43	1.6	30.65	47.9	−16	−0.25
Argentina	700	0.23	0.31	7.74	9.0	−56	−0.9
Uruguay	200	0.23	0.31	7.74	9.0	−16	−0.3

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Average ai use GM crop (kg/ha)	Average ai use if conventional (kg/ha)	Average field EIQ/ha GM crop	Average field EIQ/ha if conventional	Aggregate change in ai use (‘000 kg)	Aggregate change in field EIQ/ha units (millions)
US	29,084	3.02	3.41	57.36	67.36	−11,270	−290.8
Canada glyphosate tolerant	1,260	1.83	2.71	37.0	61.1	−1,109	−30.5
Canada glufosinate tolerant	13	1.64	2.71	36.0	61.0	−14	−0.3
Argentina	2,238	3.99	3.53	71.8	73.6	+1,038	−4.0
South Africa	1,647	2.85	3.15	53.7	66.1	−494	−20.5
Brazil	9,941	3.91	3.99	70.3	86.1	−815	−158
Uruguay	71	3.99	3.53	71.8	73.6	+33	−0.13

Notes:

1. Philippines: not included due to lack of data on weed control methods and herbicide product use

2. Uruguay – based on Argentine data – industry sources confirm herbicide use in Uruguay is very similar

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Average ai use GM crop (kg/ha)	Average ai use if conventional (kg/ha)	Average field EIQ/ha GM crop	Average field EIQ/ha if conventional	Aggregate change in ai use (‘000 kg)	Aggregate change in field EIQ/ha units (millions)
US	3,142	4.42	4.82	80.74	89.03	−1,148	−23.6
S Africa	9	1.80	1.81	27.6	31.9	−0.1	−0.04
Australia	230	5.26	7.47	90.22	143.4	−595	−14.4
Argentina	410	4.06	4.72	64.0	78.4	−269	−5.9

Notes:

1. Mexico and Colombia: not included due to lack of data on herbicide use

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Average ai use GM crop (kg/ha)	Average ai use if conventional (kg/ha)	Average field EIQ/ha GM crop	Average field EIQ/ha if conventional	Aggregate change in ai use (‘000 kg)	Aggregate change in field EIQ/ha units (millions)
US glyphosate tolerant	316	1.16	1.075	12.34	23.09	+27	−1.68
US glufosinate tolerant	329	0.425	1.075	8.6	23.09	−213	−4.77
Canada glyphosate tolerant	3,071	1.16	1.075	12.34	23.09	+264	−16.3
Canada glufosinate tolerant	4,462	0.425	1.075	8.6	23.09	−2,886	−64.6
Australia glyphosate tolerant	444	0.52	14	7.3	22.3	−232	−3.2

Table

Country	Area of trait (‘000 ha)	Average ai use GM crop (kg/ha)	Average ai use if conventional (kg/ha)	Average field EIQ/HA GM crop	Average field EIQ/ha if conventional	Aggregate change in ai use (‘000 kg)	Aggregate change in field EIQ/ha units
US	454	2.61	3.16	41.03	44.14	−252	−1.4

Table

	Active ingredient (kg/ha)	Field EIQ/ha value
GM HT soybean	3.59	55.84
Source: AMIS Global data set on pesticide use 2015
Conventional soybean
Option 1
Glyphosate	1.92	29.43
Metsulfuron	0.03	0.50
2 4 D	0.4	8.28
Imazethapyr	0.10	1.96
Diflufenican	0.03	0.29
Clethodim	0.19	3.23
Total	2.67	43.70
Option 2
Glyphosate	1.92	29.43
Dicamba	0.12	3.04
Acetochlor	1.35	26.87
Haloxifop	0.18	4.00
Sulfentrazone	0.19	2.23
Total	3.76	65.55
Option 3
Glyphosate	1.92	29.43
Atrazine	1.07	24.50
Bentazon	0.60	11.22
2 4 D ester	0.4	6.12
Imazaquin	0.024	0.37
Total	4.01	71.64
Option 4
Glyphosate	1.92	29.43
2 4 D amine	0.4	8.28
Flumetsulam	0.06	0.94
Fomesafen	0.25	6.13
Chlorimuron	0.05	0.96
Fluazifop	0.12	3.44
Total	2.80	49.18
Option 5
Glyphosate	1.92	29.43
Metsulfuron	0.03	0.50
2 4 D amine	0.8	16.56
Imazethapyr	0.1	1.96
Haloxifop	0.18	4.00
Total	3.03	52.45
Option 6
Glyphosate	1.92	29.43
Metsulfuron	0.03	0.50
2 4 D amine	0.8	16.56
Imazethapyr	0.1	1.96
Clethodim	0.24	4.08
Total	3.09	52.53
Average all 6 conventional options	3.23	55.84

Sources: AAPRESID, AMIS Global, Monsanto Argentina

Table

Active ingredient	Amount (kg/ha of crop)	Field EIQ/ha
Conventional cotton
Option 1
Imidacloprid	0.06	2.2
Thiomethoxam	0.05	1.67
Acetamiprid	0.05	1.45
Diafenthiuron	0.1	2.53
Buprofezin	0.07	2.55
Profenfos	0.81	48.28
Acephate	0.63	15.79
Cypermethrin	0.1	3.64
Metaflumizone	0.03	0.82
Novaluron	0.04	0.57
Total	1.94	79.5
Option 2
Imidacloprid	0.06	2.2
Thiomethoxam	0.05	1.67
Acetamiprid	0.05	1.45
Diafenthiuron	0.1	2.53
Chloripyrifos	0.39	10.58
Profenfos	0.81	48.28
Metaflumizone	0.03	0.82
Emamectin	0.01	0.29
Total	1.50	67.83
Average conventional	1.73	73.67
GM IR cotton
Imidacloprid	0.06	2.2
Thiomethoxam	0.05	1.67
Acetamiprid	0.05	1.45
Diafenthiuron	0.1	2.53
Buprofezin	0.07	2.55
Acephate	0.63	15.79
Total	0.97	26.19
Option 2
Imidacloprid	0.06	1.54
Thiomethoxam	0.05	1.67
Acetamiprid	0.05	2.30
Diafenthiuron	0.1	2.53
Total	0.26	8.04
Weighted average GM IR cotton	0.68	18.85

Source: Monsanto India, AMIS Global

Note: weighted average for GM IR cotton based on insecticide usage – option 1 60%, option 2 40%

Table

	Sources of data for assumptions
US	Gianessi & Carpenter (1999) (Gianessi & Carpenter, 1999)
	Sankala & Blumenthal (2003 and 2006) (Sankula & Blumenthal, 2003, Sankula & Blumenthal, 2006)
	Johnson & Strom (2007) (Johnson & Strom, 2006)
	Own analysis (2010–2015)
	All of the above mainly for conventional regimes (based on surveys and consultations of extension advisors and industry experts)
	GFK Kynetec – private market research data on pesticide usage. Is the most comprehensive data set on crop pesticide usage at the farm level and allows for disaggregation to cover biotech vs. conventional crops. This source primarily used for usage on GM traits
Argentina	AMIS Global & Kleffmann - private market research data on pesticide use. Is the most detailed data set on crop pesticide use
	AAPRESID (farmer producers association) – personal communications 2007
	Monsanto Argentina (personal communications 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015)
	Qaim & De Janvry (2005) (Qaim & De Janvry, 2005)
	Qaim & Traxler (2002) (Qaim, 2002)
Brazil	AMIS Global & Kleffmann - private market research data on crop pesticide use. Is the most detailed data set on crop pesticide use
	Monsanto Brazil (2008) (Michigan State University 2007),
	Galveo (2009Galveo, 2009 and 2012Galveo, 2012), plus personal communications
	Monsanto Brazil (personal communications 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015)
Uruguay	AMIS Global and as Argentina for conventional
Paraguay	As Argentina for conventional soybeans (over the top usage), AMIS Global for GM HT soybean
Bolivia	As Paraguay: no country-specific data identified
Canada	George Morris Center (2004) (George Morris Center 2004)
	Canola Council (2001) (Canola Council of Canada 2001)
	Smyth et al (2008) (Smyth et al., 2011)
	Weed Control Guide Ontario (updated annually)
S Africa	Monsanto S Africa (personal communications 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015)
	Ismael et al (2002) (Ismael et al., 2002)
	AMIS Global
Romania	AMIS Global, Brookes (2005) (Brookes, 2005)
Australia	AMIS Global
	Doyle et al (2003) (Doyle, 2005, Doyle, 2003)
	CSIRO (2005) (Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO 2005)
	Monsanto Australia (personal communications 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011,2012, 2014, 2016)
	Fisher & Tozer (2009) (Fisher & Tozer, 2009)
Spain	Brookes (2003 and 2008) (Brookes, 2003, Brookes, 2008)
China	AMIS Global
	Pray et al (2002) (Pray et al., 2002)
	Monsanto China personal communication (2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016)
Mexico	Monsanto Mexico (2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2016) (Monsanto Comercial Mexico 2015, Monsanto Comercial Mexico 2013, Monsanto Comercial Mexico 2012, Monsanto Comercial Mexico 2009, Monsanto Comercial Mexico 2008, Monsanto Comercial Mexico 2007, Monsanto Comercial Mexico)
	Traxler G et al (2001) (Traxler et al., 2001)
India	AMIS Global
	APCOAB (2006) (Asia-Pacific Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology (APCoAB 2006)
	IMRB (2006,2007) (IMRB International 2006, IMRB International 2007)
	Monsanto India (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2016) – personal communications

Table

	Annual reduction based on 1996 average (liters/ha)	Crop area (million ha)	Total fuel saving (million liters)	Carbon dioxide (million kg)
1996	0.00	25.98	0.00	0.00
1997	0.40	28.33	11.36	30.33
1998	0.80	29.15	23.38	62.41
1999	0.86	29.84	25.65	68.50
2000	0.92	30.15	27.66	73.86
2001	1.16	29.99	34.94	93.28
2002	1.41	29.54	41.72	111.39
2003	1.91	29.71	56.64	151.23
2004	2.40	30.28	72.69	194.09
2005	2.68	28.88	77.46	206.82
2006	2.96	30.56	90.46	241.52
2007	3.27	25.75	84.17	224.73
2008	3.51	30.21	106.06	283.19
2009	3.71	30.91	114.73	306.33
2010	4.11	31.56	129.58	345.99
2011	5.30	30.05	159.19	425.04
2012	5.63	30.82	173.59	463.49
2013	5.97	30.70	183.19	489.12
2014	5.97	33.42	199.41	532.47
2015	5.97	33.12	197.63	527.67
Total			1,809.53	4,831.45

Assumption: baseline fuel usage is the 1996 level of 36.6 liters/ha

Note: Due to rounding the cumulative totals may not exactly sum the annual totals. This applies to all tables in this appendix

Table

	Annual increase in carbon sequestered based on 1996 average (kg carbon/ha)	Crop area (million ha)	Total additional carbon sequestered (million kg)	Total additional Carbon dioxide sequestered (million kg)
1996	0.0	26.0	0.00	0.00
1997	1.4	28.3	39.33	144.35
1998	2.8	29.1	80.93	297.02
1999	3.1	29.8	91.02	334.06
2000	3.3	30.1	100.23	367.85
2001	4.3	30.0	127.80	469.04
2002	5.2	29.5	153.56	563.58
2003	7.0	29.7	208.80	766.29
2004	8.9	30.3	268.21	984.34
2005	10.0	28.9	289.94	1,064.08
2006	11.2	30.6	342.60	1,257.35
2007	12.4	25.8	319.96	1,174.25
2008	13.5	30.2	406.34	1,491.28
2009	14.3	30.9	441.73	1,621.16
2010	15.7	31.6	495.86	1,819.80
2011	20.6	30.1	617.90	2,267.71
2012	22.0	30.8	676.92	2,484.29
2013	23.4	30.7	717.28	2,632.42
2014	23.4	33.4	780.85	2,865.63
2015	23.4	33.1	773.82	2,839.91
Total			6,933.08	25,444.41

Assumption: carbon sequestration remains at the 1996 level of −102.9 kg carbon/ha/year

Table

	Annual reduction based on 1996 average of 39.1 (liters/ha)	Crop area (million ha)	Total fuel saving (million liters)	Carbon dioxide (million kg)
1996	0.0	5.9	0.0	0.00
1997	2.3	6.4	14.7	39.16
1998	3.1	7.0	21.5	57.39
1999	2.7	8.2	21.9	58.54
2000	3.0	10.6	31.6	84.45
2001	5.8	11.5	67.2	179.41
2002	8.3	13.0	107.3	286.57
2003	9.8	13.5	132.2	352.90
2004	11.7	14.3	167.4	447.02
2005	10.7	15.2	163.0	435.19
2006	11.0	16.2	177.4	473.74
2007	12.3	16.6	204.2	545.15
2008	13.7	16.8	230.4	615.13
2009	13.2	18.6	245.9	656.53
2010	13.7	18.2	249.8	667.06
2011	14.3	18.6	265.5	709.00
2012	14.3	19.4	276.3	737.58
2013	14.3	19.8	282.0	752.83
2014	14.3	19.8	282.4	753.97
2015	14.3	19.4	277.0	739.49
Total			3,217.7	8,591.1

Note: based on 21.89 liters/ha for NT and 49.01 liters/ha for CT

Table

	Annual increase in carbon sequestered based on 1996 average (kg carbon/ha)	Crop area (million ha)	Total additional carbon sequestered (million kg)	Total additional Carbon dioxide sequestered (million kg)
1996	0.0	5.91	0.0	0.0
1997	16.92	6.39	108.17	396.98
1998	22.80	6.95	158.52	581.78
1999	19.77	8.18	161.68	593.38
2000	22.03	10.59	233.27	856.09
2001	43.09	11.50	495.53	1,818.58
2002	61.05	12.96	791.51	2,904.83
2003	72.20	13.50	974.71	3,577.19
2004	86.07	14.34	1,234.69	4,531.31
2005	79.08	15.20	1,202.00	4,411.35
2006	81.02	16.15	1,308.48	4,802.13
2007	90.79	16.59	1,505.72	5,526.00
2008	101.33	16.77	1,699.00	6,235.34
2009	97.49	18.60	1,813.37	6,655.06
2010	101.23	18.20	1,842.45	6,761.81
2011	105.28	18.60	1,958.28	7,186.90
2012	105.28	19.35	2,037.25	7,476.69
2013	105.28	19.75	2,079.36	7,631.24
2014	105.28	19.78	2,082.52	7,642.83
2015	105.28	19.40	2,042.51	7,496.01
Total			23,729.02	87,085.50

Assumption: NT = +175 kg carbon/ha/yr, Conventional Tillage CT = −25 kg carbon/ha/yr

Table

	Annual reduction based on 1997 average of 40.9 (liters/ha)	Crop area (million ha)	Total fuel saving (million liters)	Carbon dioxide (million kg)
1997	0.00	6.19	0.00	0.00
1998	1.36	6.12	8.30	22.15
1999	2.71	6.05	16.40	43.80
2000	4.07	5.98	24.34	65.00
2001	5.42	6.84	37.09	99.03
2002	6.78	7.49	50.76	135.53
2003	8.14	8.21	66.83	178.43
2004	9.49	8.59	81.52	217.65
2005	10.85	8.30	89.98	240.26
2006	12.20	8.25	100.65	268.73
2007	12.20	8.19	99.89	266.71
2008	13.56	8.23	111.56	297.86
2009	14.37	8.90	127.94	341.60
2010	14.92	9.13	136.24	363.75
2011	14.92	9.11	135.83	362.66
2012	5.46	9.88	152.79	407.95
2013	16.27	10.49	170.74	455.87
2014	16.27	11.07	180.19	481.12
2015	16.27	11.54	187.77	501.35
Total			1,778.82	4,749.45

Note: based on 21.89 liters/ha for NT and RT and 49.01 liters/ha for CT

Table

	Annual increase in carbon sequestered based on 1997 average (kg carbon/ha)	Crop area (million ha)	Total addition carbon sequestered (million kg)	Total addition Carbon dioxide sequestered (million kg)
1997	0.0	6.2	0.00	0.00
1998	10.0	6.1	61.19	224.57
1999	20.0	6.0	120.98	444.00
2000	30.0	6.0	179.52	658.84
2001	40.0	6.8	273.52	1,003.82
2002	50.0	7.5	374.35	1,373.86
2003	60.0	8.2	492.84	1,808.72
2004	70.0	8.6	601.16	2,206.26
2005	80.0	8.3	663.60	2,435.41
2006	90.0	8.2	742.23	2,723.98
2007	90.0	8.2	736.65	2,703.51
2008	100.0	8.2	822.70	3,019.31
2009	106.0	8.9	943.51	3,462.67
2010	110.0	9.1	1,004.69	3,687.19
2011	110.0	9.1	1,001.67	3,676.13
2012	114.0	9.9	1,126.76	4,135.23
2013	120.0	10.5	1,259.12	4,620.99
2014	120.0	11.1	1,328.89	4,877.02
2015	120.0	11.5	1,384.75	5,082.04
Total			13,118.13	48,143.55

Assumption: NT/RT = +175 kg carbon/ha/yr, CT = −25 kg carbon/ha/yr

Table

	Annual reduction based on 1997 average (liters/ha)	Crop area (million ha)	Total fuel saving (million liters)	Carbon dioxide (million kg)
1997	0.00	32.19	0.00	0.00
1998	−0.30	32.44	−9.58	−25.57
1999	−0.14	31.32	−4.43	−11.84
2000	0.01	32.19	0.39	1.03
2001	0.11	30.64	3.30	8.81
2002	0.20	31.93	6.50	17.34
2003	0.31	31.81	10.00	26.71
2004	0.43	32.47	13.82	36.90
2005	0.78	33.10	25.85	69.01
2006	1.14	31.70	36.02	96.18
2007	1.47	37.88	55.82	149.05
2008	1.34	31.82	42.72	114.06
2009	2.18	32.21	70.34	187.80
2010	2.73	32.78	89.53	239.05
2011	3.22	34.35	110.60	295.29
2012	3.71	35.36	131.10	350.03
2013	3.95	35.48	140.20	374.33
2014	4.20	33.64	141.16	376.91
2015	4.44	32.68	145.09	387.39
Total			1,008.43	2,692.50

Assumption: baseline fuel usage is the 1997 level of 46.6 liters/ha

Table

	Annual increase in carbon sequestered based on 1997 average (kg carbon/ha)	Crop area (million ha)	Additional carbon sequestered (million kg)	Additional carbon dioxide sequestered (million kg)
1997	0.0	32.2	0.00	0.00
1998	−2.8	32.4	−90.93	−333.70
1999	−1.2	31.3	−36.32	−133.29
2000	0.5	32.2	15.56	57.11
2001	1.5	30.6	44.90	164.78
2002	2.4	31.9	78.15	286.81
2003	3.6	31.8	114.19	419.09
2004	4.7	32.5	153.64	563.84
2005	8.4	33.1	277.58	1,018.73
2006	12.0	31.7	381.73	1,400.94
2007	15.4	37.9	585.14	2,147.48
2008	14.1	31.8	448.24	1,645.05
2009	22.7	32.2	731.42	2,684.32
2010	28.3	32.8	928.21	3,406.54
2011	33.3	34.4	1,144.48	4,200.22
2012	38.3	35.4	1,354.80	4,972.11
2013	40.8	35.5	1,448.04	5,314.33
2014	43.3	33.6	1,457.30	5,348.30
2015	45.8	32.7	1,497.16	5,494.56
Total			10,533.30	38,657.22

Assumption: carbon sequestration remains at the 1997 level of 80.1 kg carbon/ha/year

Table

	Annual reduction based on 1996 average 30.6 (l/ha)	Crop area (million ha)	Total fuel saving (million liters)	Carbon dioxide (million kg)
1996	0.0	3.5	0.0	0.00
1997	0.9	4.9	4.3	11.51
1998	0.9	5.4	4.8	12.83
1999	0.9	5.6	4.9	13.15
2000	0.9	4.9	4.3	11.48
2001	1.8	3.8	6.7	17.89
2002	2.7	3.3	8.7	23.12
2003	3.5	4.7	16.6	44.32
2004	4.4	4.9	21.9	58.35
2005	5.3	5.5	29.2	77.85
2006	6.2	5.2	32.5	86.64
2007	6.5	5.9	38.7	103.36
2008	7.1	6.5	46.0	122.77
2009	8.0	6.4	50.8	135.59
2010	8.8	6.5	57.7	153.93
2011	8.9	7.5	66.1	176.54
2012	8.9	8.6	76.0	202.86
2013	8.9	7.8	69.1	184.61
2014	8.9	8.3	73.9	197.17
2015	8.9	8.1	71.5	191.00
Total			683.5	1,825.00

Note: fuel usage NT/RT = 17.3 liters/ha CT = 35 liters/ha

Table

	Annual increase in carbon sequestered based on 1996 average (kg carbon/ha)	Crop area (million ha)	Total carbon sequestered (million kg)	Carbon dioxide (million kg)
1996	0.0	3.5	0.00	0.00
1997	3.3	4.9	15.83	58.09
1998	3.3	5.4	17.64	64.75
1999	3.3	5.6	18.08	66.37
2000	3.3	4.9	15.79	57.96
2001	6.5	3.8	24.60	90.30
2002	9.8	3.3	31.80	116.71
2003	13.0	4.7	60.96	223.72
2004	16.3	4.9	80.26	294.55
2005	19.5	5.5	107.07	392.96
2006	22.8	5.2	119.17	437.36
2007	24.1	5.9	142.16	521.72
2008	26.0	6.5	168.86	619.71
2009	29.3	6.4	186.50	684.44
2010	32.5	6.5	211.72	777.00
2011	32.5	7.5	242.81	891.10
2012	32.5	8.6	279.01	1,023.98
2013	32.5	7.8	253.91	931.84
2014	32.5	8.3	271.17	995.23
2015	32.5	8.1	262.70	964.10
Total			2,510.05	9,211.89

Note: NT/RT = +55 kg of carbon/ha/yr CT = −10 kg of carbon/ha/yr

Table

	Total cotton area in GM IR growing countries excluding Burkina Faso, India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Sudan and China (million ha)	GM IR area excluding Burkina Faso, India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Sudan and China (million ha)	Total spray runs saved (million ha)	Fuel saving (million liters)	CO2 emissions saved (million kg)
1996	6.64	0.86	3.45	2.90	7.73
1997	6.35	0.92	3.67	3.09	8.24
1998	7.20	1.05	4.20	3.53	9.43
1999	7.42	2.11	8.44	7.09	18.92
2000	7.29	2.43	9.72	8.17	21.81
2001	7.25	2.55	10.18	8.55	22.84
2002	6.36	2.17	8.69	7.30	19.49
2003	5.34	2.17	8.70	7.30	19.50
2004	6.03	2.79	11.17	9.38	25.05
2005	6.34	3.21	12.84	10.78	28.79
2006	7.90	3.94	15.75	13.23	35.33
2007	6.07	3.25	12.99	10.91	29.14
2008	4.51	2.54	10.16	8.53	22.78
2009	5.33	2.96	11.83	9.94	26.54
2010	7.13	4.59	18.37	15.43	41.21
2011	6.61	4.43	17.70	14.87	39.71
2012	5.72	4.07	16.30	13.69	36.55
2013	5.29	3.75	15.01	12.61	33.66
2014	5.57	4.20	16.80	14.11	37.66
2015	5.00	3.95	15.78	13.26	35.40
Total			231.75	194.67	519.78

Notes: assumptions: 4 applications per ha, 0.84 liters/ha of fuel per insecticide application.

Gianessi L, Carpenter J. Agricultural biotechnology: Insect control benefits. Washington, DC: NCFAP; 1999.

 Google Scholar

Sankula S, Blumenthal E. Impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2003: An update of eleven case studies. Washington, DC: NCFAP; 2003.

 Google Scholar

Sankula S, Blumenthal E. Impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2005: An update of eleven case studies. Washington, DC: NCFAP; 2006.

 Google Scholar

Johnson S, Strom S. Quantification of the impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2006. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP). 2007. Available at: www.ncfap.org/special-reports

 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.

 Google Scholar

Qaim M. Traxler G. Roundup ready soybeans in Argentina: Farm level and welfare effects. Agricultural Economics 2005; 32(1), 73–86; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00006

 Google Scholar

Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of insect resistant cotton in Brazil. Celeres, Brazil 2009 & 2010. Unpublished.

 Google Scholar

Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of GM crops in Brazil 2011, Celeres, Brazil 2012. Unpublished.

 Google Scholar

George Morris Centre. Economic & environmental impacts of the commercial cultivation of glyphosate tolerant soybeans in Ontario. Guelph, Ontario: Author; 2004. Unpublished.

 Google Scholar

Canola Council of Canada. An agronomic & economic assessment of transgenic canola, Canola Council, Canada. 2001. Available at: http://www.canolacouncil.org/media/504430/17908_transgenic_canola_1.pdf

 Google Scholar

Smyth SJ, Gusta M, Belcher K, Phillips PWB, Castle D. Changes in Herbicide Use Following the Adoption of HR Canola in Western Canada. Weed Technol 2011; 25:492-500; http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-10-00164.1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ismael Y, Bennett R, Morse S, Buthelezi T. Bt cotton, pesticides, labour and health: A case study of smallholder farmers in the Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa. Outlook on Agriculture 2003; 32(2):123–128.

 Google Scholar

Brookes G. The farm-level impact of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in Romania. AgBioForum 2005; 8(4):235-41. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org

 Google Scholar

Doyle B. The performance of Ingard and Bollgard II cotton in Australia during the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 seasons. Armidale, Australia: University of N Engl; 2005.

 Google Scholar

Doyle B. The performance of roundup ready cotton 2001–2002 in the Australian cotton sector. Armidale, Australia: University N Eng; 2003.

 Google Scholar

Fisher J, Tozer P. Evaluation of the environmental and economic impact of Roundup Ready Canola in the Western Australian Crop Production System. Curtin University of Technology. 2009. Technical report 11/2009. Available at: https://www.abca.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/news_pdf_068_WA_Curtin_University_canola_study.pdf

 Google Scholar

Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic and environmental effects 1996–2006. Agbioforum 2008; 11(1):21-38. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org

 Google Scholar

Pray C, Huang J, Hu R, Roselle S. Five years of Bt cotton in China – the benefits continue. Plant Journal 2002; 31(4):423-30; PMID:12182701; http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01401.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2008 cotton crop. 2008. Unpublished.

 Google Scholar

Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2015 cotton crop. 2015. Unpublished.

 Google Scholar

Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2013 cotton crop. 2013. Unpublished.

 Google Scholar

Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2011 cotton crop. 2012. Unpublished.

 Google Scholar

Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2009 cotton crop. 2009. Unpublished.

 Google Scholar

Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2007 cotton crop. 2007. Unpublished.

 Google Scholar

Traxler G, Godoy-Avilla S, Falck-Zepeda J, Espinoza-Arellano J. Transgenic cotton in Mexico: Economic and environmental impacts. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Biotechnology, Science and Modern Agriculture: A new industry at the dawn of the century, Ravello, Italy. 2001. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228584807_Transgenic_Cotton_in_Mexico_Economic_and_Environmental_Impacts

 Google Scholar

IMRB International. Socio-economic benefits of Bollgard and product satisfaction in India. Mumbai, India: Author; 2007. Unpublished.

 Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar