Farming and Environmental Benefits

Printer Friendly

Issue in Brief:
Biotechnology Delivers Clear Benefits to the Farmer and the Environment

Farmers face a multitude of plant pests and diseases. Pressures from insects, viruses, weeds and weather can impose considerable damage on crops, lowering yields and raising costs.

Traditionally, farmers have relied on combinations of herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and irrigated water to protect their crops and boost production. Each of these inputs adds to the cost of the product, but they are necessary investments. In addition to the economic costs, these inputs also may exact environmental costs.

Biotechnology Increases Options for Farmers
Plants developed to defend themselves against insect pests or diseases or to tolerate certain herbicides represent the first generation of biotechnology crops. Crops developed using biotechnology give farmers greater flexibility and safer, more innovative choices in pest management. The economic and environmental benefits of biotech crops have been documented in comprehensive reports from the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP), the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others.

Insect-Protected Crops - Biotechnology is used to strengthen a crop's own ability to defend itself against destructive insects, reducing, and sometimes eliminating, the need for chemical pesticides. The plants are given the genetic ability to produce a protein-toxic to certain insects but harmless to humans and animals-that is found in a common soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. The current generation of Bt cotton, corn and potatoes protects against the European corn borer, the cotton and pink bollworms, and the Colorado potato beetle, respectively. Other insect-protected plants in development include soybean, peanut, broccoli and eggplant. A nematode-resistant pineapple also is in development.

Disease-Protected Crops - Plant diseases caused by microorganisms exact a devastating toll on food production, especially in developing regions of the world that can least afford the losses. Controlling these pests is difficult and costly. Fungicides, for example, are expensive and often kill beneficial organisms. The only means to control viral infections are plant breeding and pesticide applications to kill disease-transmitting insects. The means to combat bacteria also are limited, and though antibiotics are available, their use often is not economical.

Biotechnology is used to inoculate plants against a broad range of microorganisms. Crops with disease protection include sweet potato and cassava, critical staple crops in Africa, as well as rice, corn, potato, cucumber, watermelon and papaya. The development of papaya resistant to the papaya ringspot virus was instrumental in saving this industry in Hawaii. Soon new banana varieties resistant to Black Sigatoka will reduce the need for chemical controls, improve production agronomics and increase the quality of bananas. Future crops with disease resistance will include peanut, tomato, raspberry, potato, apple, sunflower, barley and wheat.

Herbicide-Tolerant Crops - Weeds pose a constant problem for farmers. Before the advent of herbicide-tolerant biotech crops, about 95 percent of U.S. farmland was treated with herbicides. Most crops have innate resistance to some herbicides, but usually not those that control the specific weeds that affect them. This creates problems for the farmer. Biotechnology offers a solution that permits the use of newer, lower-impact herbicides in circumstances where it was not feasible before. Farmers can use safer controls, which reduces the overall environmental impact, and spray only as needed, which lowers production costs. Superior weed control also increases productivity per acre.

Herbicide-tolerant varieties of soybean, canola, cotton and corn are currently being grown. New varieties of wheat, alfalfa, rice, potato, strawberry, lettuce, tomato and sugar cane are also being developed.

Biotechnology Delivers Benefits
Pest-resistant and herbicide-tolerant biotech varieties have been widely adopted by U.S. farmers. Prospective data from USDA for the 2002-2003 planting season indicate that they account for 38 percent of all grain corn, 70 percent of all upland cotton and 80 percent of soybean-planted acres.

Biotech plants provide farmers with more and better weed- and pest-control options, and they produce greater yields by reducing crop damage from weeds and pests. They also reduce the environmental impact of farming. Crops developed using biotechnology are making agriculture more sustainable by reducing synthetic chemical inputs and promoting more environmentally preferable agricultural practices, such as no- or low-till farming.

Increased Productivity and Income for Farmers - Biotechnology-derived varieties of pest-protected corn, cotton and potatoes and herbicide-tolerant soybean have resulted in a significant reduction in pesticide and herbicide use, boosted yields and saved growers tens of millions of dollars. A recent study by the NCFAP found that, combined, current biotech cultivars increase yields by 4 billion pounds and boost farm income by $1.5 billion per year. In addition, widespread planting of other biotech cultivars under development can raise yields an additional 10 billion pounds and farm income an extra $1 billion annually.

Environmental Protection - Herbicide-tolerant plants allow farmers to use new-generation herbicides with low toxicity and reduced persistence in the environment. They also permit low- or no-tillage agricultural practices. A recent study by the Conservation Technology Information Center at Purdue University found that conservation tillage has a number of environmental benefits, including:

• reduced soil erosion;
• improved moisture content in soil;
• healthier, more nutrient-enriched soil;
• more earthworms and beneficial soil microbes;
• reduced consumption of fuel to operate equipment;
• the return of beneficial insects, birds and other wildlife in and around fields;
• less sediment and chemical runoff entering streams;
• reduced potential for flooding;
• less dust and smoke to pollute the air; and
• lower emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from soils.

Pest-resistant Bt crops reduce pesticide use. The NCFAP calculates that insect-resistant crop varieties of cotton and field corn lower insecticide use by 4.5 million pounds in 2001. Adoption of new insect-resistant varieties of corn, cotton, potato, soybean, peanut, broccoli and eggplant has the potential to reduce insecticide use a further 17.6 million pounds, for a total reduction in insecticide use of 22 million pounds annually. Crops now in development that resist bacterial and fungal pests also have the potential to reduce pesticide use by tens of millions of pounds each year.

Improved Water Quality - Reducing nutrients (phosphate, potassium and nitrogen) in farm runoff, increasing fertilizer efficiency and conserving topsoil are ways that biotechnology helps protect water quality. Reduced insect damage in Bt crops means healthier plants use fertilizer more efficiently, reducing excess soil nutrients.

Biotechnology also is helping to reduce nutrient runoff from animal farms. Low-phytate corn and soybeans allow livestock to digest and absorb phosphates in feed grain more effectively, reducing potentially harmful phosphorus in animal waste.

Resources:
Major Reports:

• New Genetics, Food & Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries - Societal Dilemmas (June 10, 2003) - The International Council for Science.
• Discussion Paper: The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries (June 7, 2003) - Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn and Cotton Crops (June 25, 2002).
  Executive summaries available in Chinese, English, French, Portuguese and Spanish.
• Leonard P. Gianessi, Cressida S. Silvers, Sujatha Sankula and Janet E. Carpenter. Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact For Improving Pest Management In U.S. Agriculture: An Analysis of 40 Case Studies, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (June 2002).
  Other NCFAP studies on the pest-management benefits of corn, cotton, and soybeans enhanced through agricultural biotechnology are available here.

• Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and William D. McBride, Adoption of Bioengineered Crops, USDA Economics Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. AER810 (May 2002)
• Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, William McBride et al. Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture, USDA Economics Research Service, Agricultural Economics Report No. 786 (May 2000).
• National Agricultural Statistics Service, Prospective Plantings (March 28, 2002).
  Other NASS statistical reports on prospective plantings, acreage, crop production, chemical usage and crop process are available here.

• Bt Plant-Pesticides Biopesticides Registration Action Document, II Science Assessment, E. Benefits (October 15, 2001). To read the full report, click here.
• FIFRA Science Advisory Panel, Issues Pertaining to the Bt Plant Pesticides Risk and Benefit Assessments (October 18-20, 2000).

• Charles M. Benbrook, An Appraisal of EPA's Assessment of the Benefits of Bt Crops, Prepared For: The Union of Concerned Scientists (October 17, 2000).
  Read the response:
  Leonard P. Gianessi, A Critique of: An Appraisal of EPA's Assessment of the Benefits of Bt Crops by Dr. Charles M. Benbrook, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (October 31, 2000).

Other Resources:

• AgBioForum, Farm-Level Economic Impacts of Agrobiotechnology, 2(2), 1999.
  This issue of the online journal is devoted to farmer benefits.
• AgBioWorld, Biotech Yield References.
  A compilation of many papers and review documents about the yield of biotech crops and their environmental impacts.
• Phipps, R.H., and Park, J.R. 2002. Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: Global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 11: 1-18.
• Shelton, A.M., Zhao, J-Z., and Roush, R.T. 2002. Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of Bt transgenic plants. Annu. Rev. Entomol 47:845-81.
  "Based on the data collected to date, generally these crops have shown positive economic benefits to growers and reduced the use of other insecticides."

• Ismael, Y., Bennett, R., and Morse, S. 2002. Benefits from Bt cotton use by smallholder farmers in South Africa. AgBioForum 5(1): 1-5.
• Pray, C.E., Huang, J., Hu, R., and Rozelle, S. 2002. Five years of Bt cotton in China-the benefits continue. The Plant Journal 31(4): 423-430.
• Perlak, F.J., et al. 2001. Development and commercial use of Bollgard® cotton in the USA-early promises versus today's reality. The Plant Journal 27(6): 489-501.
• International Cotton Advisory Committee, Report of an Expert Panel on Biotechnology in Cotton (November 2000).
• Traxler, G., and Falck-Zepeda, J. 1999. The distribution of benefits from the introduction of transgenic cotton varieties. AgBioForum 2(2): 94-98.

• Cher Brethour et al. Agronomic, Economic and Environmental Impacts of the Commercial Cultivation of Glyphosate Tolerant Soybeans in Ontario, Council for Biotechnology Information (Canada) (2002).

• Fulton, M., and Keyowski, L. 1999. The producer benefits of herbicide-resistant canola. AgBioForum 2(2): 1-5.

• American Soybean Association, ASA Conservation Tillage Study (November 12, 2001).
• Conservation Technology Information Center, Purdue University, Conservation Tillage and Plant Biotechnology: How New Technology Can Improve the Environment by Reducing the Need to Plow (2002).
• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Storing Carbon in Agricultural Soils to Help Mitigate Global Warming, CAST Issue Paper 14 (April 2000).

• Spencer, J.D., Allee, G.L., and Sauber, T.E. 2000. Phosphorus bioavailability and digestibility of normal and genetically modified low-phytate corn for pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 675-681.
• Ertl, D.S., Young, K.A., and Raboy, V. 1998. Plant genetic approaches to phosphorus management in agricultural production. J Environ Qual 27: 299-304.

• Ploetz, R.C. 2001. Black Sigatoka of banana. The Plant Health Instructor, January 21, 2001.

• Gonsalves, D., et al. (2000) Transgenic virus resistant papaya: New hope for controlling papaya ringspot virus in Hawaii. Plant Health Progress, 21 June 2000.

• Charles M. Benbrook, The Bt Premium Price: What Does It Buy? The Impact of Extra Bt Corn Seed Costs on Farmer Earnings and Corporate Finances, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the Genetically Engineered Food Alert (February 2002).
• Charles M. Benbrook, When Does It Pay to Plant Bt Corn? Farm-Level Economic Impacts of Bt Corn, 1996-2001, A Special Report for the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (2001).
• Soil Association, Seeds of Doubt: Experiences of North American Farmers of Genetically Modified Crops (September 2002).
  Read the response:
  Kimball Nill, "Let the Facts Speak for Themselves" The contribution of agricultural crop biotechnology to American farming, Tomorrow's Bounty (September 16, 2002).

For more links, click here.

About advertising opportunities