The global income and production effects of genetically modified (GM) crops 1996–2011

Figures & data

Table 1. GM HT soybeans: summary of average farm level economic impacts 1996–2011 ($/hectare)

Country	Cost of technology	Average farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology)	Type of benefit	References
1st 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 (2005^4) Monsanto Romania (2007^5)
Argentina	2–4	23 plus second crop benefits of 193	Cost savings plus second crop gains	Qaim and Traxler (2005^6) Trigo and CAP (2006^7) and updated from 2008 to reflect herbicide price changes
Brazil	16–25	37	Cost savings	Parana Department of Agriculture (2004^8) Galveo (2010,^9 2012^10)
USA	15–39	38	Cost savings	Marra et al. (2002^11) Carpenter and Gianessi (2002^12) Sankala and Blumenthal (2003^13 and 2006^14) Johnson and Strom (2008^15) And updated to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
Canada	20–40	20	Cost savings	George Morris Center (2004^16) and updated to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
Paraguay	4–10	18 plus second crop benefits of 193	Cost savings	Based on Argentina as no country-specific analysis identified. Impacts confirmed by industry sources and herbicide costs updated 2009 onwards from herbicide usage survey data (AMIS Global)
Uruguay	2–4	19	Cost savings	Based on Argentina as no country-specific analysis identified. Impacts confirmed by industry sources and herbicide costs updated 2009 onwards from herbicide usage survey data (AMIS Global)
South Africa	20–30	4	Cost savings	Based on Argentina as no country-specific analysis identified. Impacts confirmed by industry sources and herbicide costs updated 2009 onwards from herbicide usage survey data (AMIS Global)
Mexico	20–25	49	Cost savings plus yield gain in range of +2% to +13%	Monsanto unpublished annual monitoring reports and personal communications
Bolivia	3–4	81	Cost savings plus yield gain of +15%	Fernandez W et al. (2009^17)
2nd^t generation GM HT soybeans
US and Canada	50–65	120	Cost savings as first generation plus yield gains in range of +5% to +10%	As first generation GM HT soybeans plus farm level survey data from Monsanto USA

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

Table 2. GM HT maize: summary of average farm level economic impacts 1996–2011 ($/hectare)

Country	Cost of technology	Average farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology)	Type of benefit	References
USA	15–30	20	Cost savings	Carpenter and Gianessi (2002^12) Sankala and Blumenthal (2003^13 and 2006^14) Johnson and Strom (2008^15) Also updated to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
Canada	17–35	11	Cost savings	Monsanto Canada (personal communications) and updated annually since 2008 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage
Argentina	16–20	84	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	1	Cost savings	Personal communication from Monsanto South Africa and updated since 2008 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage
Brazil	17–20	77	Cost savings plus yield gains of +1% to +4%	Galveo (2010^9 and 2012^10)
Colombia	38–40	17	Cost savings	Mendez et al. (2011^18)
Philippines	24–29	47	Cost savings plus yield gains of +5% to +15%	Gonsales et al. (2009^19) 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 Supplemental Materials, Appendix 1.

Table 3. GM HT cotton summary of average farm level economic impacts 1996–2011 ($/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 (2002^12) Sankala and Blumenthal (2003^13 and 2006^14) Johnson and Strom (2008^15) Also updated to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
South Africa	15–32	33	Cost savings	Personal communication from Monsanto South Africa and updated since 2008 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage
Australia	32–131	27	Cost savings	Doyle et al. (2003^20) Monsanto Australia (personal communications) and updated to reflect changes in herbicide usage and prices
Argentina	17–30	39	Cost savings	Personal communication from Monsanto Argentina, Grupo CEO and updated since 2008 to reflect changes in herbicide prices and usage
Brazil	45–52	118	Cost savings plus yield gains of +2% to +4%	Galveo (2010^9 and 2012^10)
Mexico	29–66	132	Cost savings plus yield gains of +3% to +18%	Monsanto Mexico annual monitoring reports^21 and personal communications
Colombia	96–184	100	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 Supplemental Materials, Appendix 1.

Table 4. Other GM HT crops summary of average farm level economic impacts 1996–2011 ($/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	59	Mostly yield gains of +1% to +12% (especially Invigor canola)	Sankala and Blumenthal (2003^13 and 2006^14) Johnson and Strom (2008^15) And updated to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
Canada	18–32	49	Mostly yield gains of +3% to +12% (especially Invigor canola)	Canola Council (2001^22) Gusta et al. (2009^23) and updated to reflect herbicide price changes and seed variety trial data (on yields)
Australia	32–41	61	Mostly yield gains of +16% to +22% (where replacing triazine tolerant canola)	Monsanto Australia (2009^24)
GM HT sugar beet
US and Canada	130–151	118	Mostly yield gains of +3% to +13%	Kniss (2008^25) Khan (2008^26) Armstrong JJQ and Sprague C (2010^27) 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 Supplemental Materials, Appendix 1.

Table 5. Average (%) yield gains GM IR cotton and maize 1996–2011

	Maize insect resistance to corn boring pests	Maize insect resistance to rootworm pests	Cotton insect resistance	References
US	7.0	5.0	9.8	Carpenter and Gianessi (2002^12) Marra et al. (2002^11) Sankala and Blumenthal (2003^13 and 2006^14) Hutchison et al. (2010^28) Rice (2004^29)
China	N/a	N/a	10.0	Pray et al. (2002^30) Monsanto China (personal communications)
South Africa	11.8	N/a	24.0	Gouse et al. (2005,^31 2006a^32 and 2006b^33) Van der Wald (2010^34) Ismael et al. (2002^35) Kirsten et al. (2002^36) James (2003^37)
Honduras		N/a	N/a	Falk Zepeda et al. (2009^38)
Mexico	N/a	N/a	10.0	Traxler et al. (2001^39) Monsanto Mexico annual cotton monitoring reports^21
Argentina	6.4	N/a	30.0	Trigo (2002^40) Trigo and Cap (2006^7) Qaim and De Janvry (2002^41 and 2005^42) Elena (2001^43)
Philippines	18.6	N/a	N/a	Gonsales (2005^44) Yorobe (2004^45) Ramon (2005^46)
Spain	9.9	N/a	N/a	Brookes (2003^47 and 2008^48) Gomez-Barbero and Rodriguez-Corejo (2006^49) Riesgo et al. (2012^50)
Uruguay	5.6	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	38.0	Bennett et al. (2004^51) IMRB (2006^52 and 2007^53) Herring and Rao (2012^54)
Colombia	21.0	N/a	10.0	Mendez et al. (2011^18) Zambrano et al. (2009^55)
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 J et al. (2008^56 and 2010^57)
Brazil	12.0	N/a	-0.3	Galveo (2009,^58 2010^10 and 2012^59) Monsanto Brazil (2008^60)
Pakistan	N/a	N/a	13.0	Nazli et al. (2010^61)
Burma	N/a	N/a	31.0	USDA (2011^62)
Australia	N/a	N/a	Nil	Doyle (2005^63) James (2002^64) CSIRO (2005^65) Fitt (2001^66)

Notes: N/A = not applicable

Table 6. GM IR crops: average farm income benefit 1996–2011 ($/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	80 IRCB, 86 IR CRW	26–58	80
Canada	17–25 IRCB, 22–42 IR CRW	82 IRCB 99 IR CRW	N/a	N/a
Argentina	20–33	20	27–86	177
Philippines	30–39	88	N/a	N/a
South Africa	8–17	78	14–50	185
Spain	17–51	156	N/a	N/a
Uruguay	20–33	20	N/a	N/a
Honduras	30–31	86	N/a	N/a
Colombia	43–48	233	50–172	67
Brazil	54–69	12	34–52	15
China	N/a	N/a	38–60	341
Australia	N/a	N/a	85–299	193
Mexico	N/a	N/a	48–59	190
India	N/a	N/a	17–54	267
Burkina Faso	N/a	N/a	51–54	157
Burma	N/a	N/a	17–20	349
Pakistan	N/a	N/a	14–15	47
Average across all user countries		75		244

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) Colombia, GM IR maize are farm level trials only. (4) Average across all countries is a weighted average based on areas planted in each user country. (5) N/A = not applicable

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

	1996–2011 additional production (million tonnes)	2011 additional production (million tonnes)
Soybeans	110.2	12.74
Corn	195.0	34.54
Cotton	15.85	2.48
Canola	6.55	0.44
Sugar beet	0.45	0.13

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

Brookes G. (2005) The farm level impact of using Roundup Ready soybeans in Romania. Agbioforum Vol 8, No 4. www.agbioforum.org

 Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

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

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

Galveo A. (2012) Farm survey findings of impact of GM crops in Brazil 2011, Celeres, Brazil. www.celeres.co.br

 Google Scholar

Marra M, Pardey P, Alston J. (2002) The pay-offs of agricultural biotechnology: an assessment of the evidence, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, USA.

 Google Scholar

Carpenter J, Gianessi L. (2002) Agricultural Biotechnology: updated benefit estimates, National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP), Washington, USA.

 Google Scholar

Sankala S, Blumenthal E. (2003) Impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2003- an update of eleven case studies, NCFAP, Washington. www.ncfap.org

 Google Scholar

Sankala S, Blumenthal E. (2006) Impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2005- an update of eleven case studies, NCFAP, Washington. www.ncfap.org

 Google Scholar

Johnson S, Strom S. (2008) Quantification of the impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2006, NCFAP, Washington. www.ncfap.org

 Google Scholar

George Morris Centre. (2004) Economic & environmental impacts of the commercial cultivation of glyphosate tolerant soybeans in Ontario, unpublished report for Monsanto Canada.

 Google Scholar

Fernandez W, et al. (2009) GM soybeans in Bolivia, paper presented to the 13th ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy, June 2009.

 Google Scholar

Mendez K, et al. Production cost analysis and use of pesticides in the transgenic and conventional corn crop [Zea mays (L.)] in the valley of San Juan, Tolima. GM Crops 2011; 2:163 - 8; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.2.3.17591; PMID: 22008311

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Gonsales L, et al. (2009) Modern Biotechnology and Agriculture: a history of the commercialisation of biotechnology maize in the Philippines, Strive Foundation, Los Banos, Philippines, ISBN 978-971-91904-8-6.

 Google Scholar

Doyle B, et al. (2003) The Performance of Roundup Ready cotton 2001-2002 in the Australian cotton sector, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.

 Google Scholar

Monsanto Comercial Mexico. (2005-2009) Official reports to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of each year’s cotton crop, unpublished.

 Google Scholar

Canola Council of Canada. (2001) An agronomic & economic assessment of transgenic canola, Canola Council, Canada. www.canola-council.org

 Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

Monsanto Australia (2009) Survey of herbicide tolerant canola licence holders 2008.

 Google Scholar

Kniss A. (2009) Farm scale analysis of glyphosate resistant sugar beet in the year of commercial introduction in Wyoming, University of Wyoming.

 Google Scholar

Khan M. Roundup Ready sugar beet in America. British Sugar Beet Review 2008; 76:16 - 9

 Google Scholar

Armstrong JJQ, Sprague C. Weed management in wide-and narrow-row glyphosate resistant sugar beet. Weed Technol 2010; 24:523 - 8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-10-00033.1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hutchison WD, Burkness EC, Mitchell PD, Moon RD, Leslie TW, Fleischer SJ, et al. Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science 2010; 330:222 - 5; www.sciencemag.org http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1190242; PMID: 20929774

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rice M. Transgenic rootworm corn: assessing potential agronomic, economic and environmental benefits. Plant Health Progress 2004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHP-2004-0301-01-RV

 Google Scholar

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

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gouse M, et al. (2005) A GM subsistence crop in Africa: the case of Bt white maize in S Africa, Int Journal Biotechnology, Vol 7, No1/2/3 2005.

 Google Scholar

Gouse M, et al. Output & labour effect of GM maize and minimum tillage in a communal area of Kwazulu-Natal. Journal of Development Perspectives 2006; a 2:2

 Google Scholar

Gouse, et al. Three seasons of insect resistant maize in South Africa: have small farmers benefited. AgBioforum 2006; b 9:15 - 22

 Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

Ismael Y et al. (2002) A case study of smallholder farmers in the Mahathini flats, South Africa, ICABR conference, Ravello Italy 2002.

 Google Scholar

Kirsten J, et al. (2002) 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

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

 Google Scholar

Falck Zepeda J, et al. (2009) Small ‘resource poor’ countries taking advantage of the new bio-economy and innovation: the case of insect protected and herbicide tolerant corn in Honduras, paper presented to the 13th ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy, June 2009.

 Google Scholar

Traxler G, et al. (2001) Transgenic cotton in Mexico: economic and environmental impacts, ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy.

 Google Scholar

Trigo EJ, et al. (2002) Genetically Modified Crops in Argentina agriculture: an open ended story. Libros del Zorzal, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

 Google Scholar

Qaim M, De Janvry A. (2002) Bt cotton in Argentina: analysing adoption and farmers willingness to pay, American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, California

 Google Scholar

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

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Elena M. (2001) Economic advantages of transgenic cotton in Argentina, INTA, cited in Trigo & Cap (2006)

 Google Scholar

Gonsales L. (2005) Harnessing the benefits of biotechnology: the case of Bt corn in the Philippines. ISBN 971-91904-6-9. Strive Foundation, Laguna, Philippines.

 Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

Brookes G. (2003) The farm level impact of using Bt maize in Spain, ICABR conference paper 2003, Ravello, Italy. Also on www.pgeconomics.co.uk

 Google Scholar

Brookes G. The benefits of adopting GM insect resistant (Bt) maize in the EU: first results from 1998-2006. Int J Biotechnol 2008; 134:1 - 39

 Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

Riesgo L, et al. 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. Span J Agric Res 2012; 10:867 - 76; http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2012104-448-11

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bennett R, et al. (2004) Economic impacts of GM cotton in India, AgBioforum Vol 7, No 3.

 Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

IMRB. (2007) Socio-economic benefits of Bollgard and product satisfaction (in India), IMRB International, Mumbai, India.

 Google Scholar

Herring R, Rao C. On the ‘failure of Bt cotton’: analysing a decade of experience. Econ Polit Wkly 2012; 47:45 - 54

 Google Scholar

Zambrano P, et al. (2009) Insect resistant cotton in Columbia: impact on farmers, paper presented to the 13th ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy, June 2009.

 Google Scholar

Vitale J, et al. The economic impact of 2nd generation Bt cotton in West Africa: empirical evidence from Burkina Faso. International Journal of Biotechnology 2008; 10:167 - 83; http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBT.2008.018352

 Google Scholar

Vitale J. (2010) Impact of Bollgard II on the Socio Economic and Health Welfare of Smallholder Cotton Farmers in Burkina Faso: Results of the 2009 Field Survey14th ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy, June 2010.

 Google Scholar

Galveo A. (2009 & 2010) Farm survey findings of impact of insect resistant cotton in Brazil, Celeres, Brazil. www.celeres.co.br

 Google Scholar

Galveo A. (2009) Unpublished (in January 2010) data on first survey findings of impact of insect resistant corn (first crop) in Brazil, Celeres, Brazil. www.celeres.co.br

 Google Scholar

Monsanto Brazil (2008) Farm survey of conventional and Bt cotton growers in Brazil 2007, unpublished.

 Google Scholar

Nazli H, et al. (2010) 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, USA.

 Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

Doyle B. (2005) The Performance of Ingard and Bollgard II Cotton in Australia during the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 seasons, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.

 Google Scholar

James C (2002) Global review of commercialized transgenic crops 2001: feature Bt cotton, ISAAA No 26.

 Google Scholar

CSIRO. (2005) The cotton consultants Australia 2005 Bollgard II comparison report, CSIRO, Australia.

 Google Scholar

Fitt G. (2001) 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.

 Google Scholar