In spite of the repeated claims by activists who oppose biotechnology and GMOs on ideological grounds, GM traits are improving environmental impacts from pesticide (insecticide and herbicide) use. Genetically modified foods have been available in the marketplace since 1996, and in the last 2 decades, pesticide use in the areas where GM crops are planted has been reduced by 503 million kg, and the environmental impact dropped by 18.7%. Here's more from the press release, where you can find a link to the full document:
- Crop biotechnology has contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with GM crops. In 2012, this was equivalent to removing 27 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 11.9 million cars from the road for one year;
- Crop biotechnology has reduced pesticide spraying (1996-2012) by 503 million kg (-8.8%). This is equal to the total amount of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the EU 27 for nearly two crop years. As a result, this has decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on the area planted to biotech crops by 18.7% (2);
- The insect resistant (IR) technology used in cotton and corn has consistently delivered yield gains from reduced pest damage. The average yield gains over the 1996-2012 period across all users of this technology has been +10.4% for insect resistant corn and +16.1% for insect resistant cotton;
- The herbicide tolerant (HT) technology used in soybeans and canola has also contributed to increased production in some countries; by helping farmers in Argentina grow a crop of soybeans after wheat in the same growing season (3), through higher yields and improved weed control;
- Between 1996 and 2012, crop biotechnology was responsible for an additional 122 million tonnes of soybeans and 231 million tonnes of corn. The technology has also contributed an extra 18.2 million tonnes of cotton lint and 6.6 million tonnes of canola;
- GM crops are allowing farmers to grow more without using additional land. If crop biotechnology had not been available to the (17.3 million) farmers using the technology in 2012, maintaining global production levels at the 2012 levels would have required additional plantings of 4.9 million ha of soybeans, 6.9 million ha of corn, 3.1 million ha of cotton and 0.2 million ha of canola. This total area requirement is equivalent to 9% of the arable land in the US, or 24% of the arable land in Brazil or 27% of the cereal area in the EU (28);
- Crop biotechnology helps farmers earn reasonable incomes for their work. The net economic benefit at the farm level in 2012 was $18.8 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $117/hectare. For the 17 year period (1996-2012), the global farm income gain has been $116.6 billion;
- The highest yield gains were obtained by farmers in developing countries, many of which are resource-poor and farm small plots of land;
- The total farm income gain of $116.6 billion was divided equally between farmers in developing and developed countries;
- Crop biotechnology continues to be a good investment for farmers around the world. The cost farmers paid for accessing crop biotechnology in 2012 ($5.6 billion (4)(5) payable to the seed supply chain) was equal to 23% of the total gains (a total of $24.4 billion inclusive of the $18.8 billion income gains). Globally, farmers received an average of $3.33 for each dollar invested in GM crop seeds;
- Farmers in developing countries received $3.74 for each dollar invested in GM crop seeds in 2012 (the cost being equal to 21% of total technology gains), while farmers in developed countries received $3.04 for each dollar invested in GM crop seed (the cost being equal to 25% of the total technology gains). The higher share of total technology gains realised by farmers in developing countries relative to farmers in developed countries mainly reflects weaker provision and enforcement of intellectual property rights coupled with higher average levels of benefits in developing countries.
More at PG Economics.