This presentations summarizes the economic impacts of GE crops as included in Chapter 6 of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report on genetically engineered crops released May 2016.

1. BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Genetically Engineered Crops:
Experiences and Prospects
The Economic Impacts
José Falck-Zepeda
Senior Research Fellow
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Presented at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Forum of
Scientific Society Leaders on Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects,
December 7, 2016, National Academy of Sciences Building 2101 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC.

2. Committee’s Process – The economics
• Examined the economics
relevant literature (270+
articles including several
meta analysis just in
developing countries
• Attempted to describe
the context and
economic issues related
to GE crop adoption
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Photo credits: Milo
Mitchel IFPRI,
Denisses McLean
Zamorano
University, Jose
Yorobe Jr. UP-LB,
Jose Falck Zepeda
IFPRI

3. Experiences: Economic Effects
CONCLUSION: Available evidence generally indicates
favorable economic outcomes for producers of GE
maize, cotton, and soybeans although there is high
heterogeneity.
CAVEAT: Although GE crops have provided economic benefits to many
small-scale farmers in the early years of adoption, enduring and
widespread gains will depend on institutional support and access to
profitable local and global markets.
CAVEAT: Need to carefully examine sampling methods, sampling and
statistical biases and corrections used, methods and approaches for
estimation. They can help explain robustness of results.
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

4. China - Bt cotton case studies
• Huang et al., (multiple 2002- 2004); Pray et al. (2011)
– Bt cotton in China has had favorable effects on farm profits, insecticide
use, health, and the environment
– Revenue was slightly higher from Bt cotton than from non-Bt cotton in
2004 and 2006 but roughly 40 percent higher in 2007.
– 2006 and 2007 results not as robust: few farmers growing non-Bt
• Fok et al. (2005) ;Pemsl et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2005; Xu et al., 2008
– Favorable effects of Bt cotton adoption in the Yellow River region
– Adoption has not been as successful in the Yangtze River Valley.
– Lower pest pressure in Yangtze River Valley than in the Yellow River
region, while cotton varieties deployed seem to be less adapted to agro-
climatic conditions
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

5. China - longer term Bt cotton studies
• Qiao (2015) data from 1997 to 2012 corrected for bias
– Increased seed costs offset by reductions in insecticides,
labor costs, and yield damage, significant variability
– Economic benefit of Bt cotton totaled 33 billion yuan over 15
years.
• Huang et al. (2010) used farm-level data collected in
1999–2007, 16 villages, 4 provinces, 525 households that
planted Bt cotton, non-Bt cotton, or both on 3,576 plots
of land.
– Target insect declined over the 10-year period surveyed
– Evidence that target pest suppression benefited GE and
Non-GE farmers
– Continued insecticide application rates decrease over time
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

6. Philippines Bt/RR maize
• Yorobe and Smale (2012): stratified
random sample of maize farmers (254 GE-
212 non-GE hybrid users in 17 villages in
Northern Isabela(Luzon) and South
Cotabato (Mindanao) 2007– 2008, Biases
and unobserved variables corrections
– GE maize adoption increased yields and
net farm, off-farm, and household
income compared with non- GE hybrids
used
– Adopting farmers are better off –
higher income, more education, and a
favorable view of technology
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

7. Philippines Bt/RR maize
• Afidchao et al. (2014): purposive
sampling, indicative not
statistically representative of
population
– Small-scale farmers adopted GE maize
after large-scale farmers
– GE maize farmers adopted because they
were curious, expected better yields,
insect control and reduced input costs
– About 25% of survey respondents who
adopted GE maize indicated that
technology not to have been worthy
investment
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

8. Experiences:
Economic Effects – Personal Comments
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
• Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
• Similarities and differences with other technologies
• Actual and potential benefits from GE technology adoption. Important
tool to consider, prudent not to disregard as an option especially in
developing countries
• Significant developments in the public sector in developing countries (VR
beans in Brazil, Bt cotton in China and India, DT sugarcane in Brazil and
Indonesia, DT maize and Bt Cowpea in Africa….etc. )
• Several crops/traits combinations of interest especially to developing
countries - many which have productivity limitations that can probably be
only addressed through biotechnology means- will be available to
producers if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues.

9. BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
José Benjamin Falck-
Zepeda, Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow
IFPRI
2033 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006-1002
USA
j.falck-zepeda@cgiar.org
Brief bio/pubs:
http://www.ifpri.org/staffprofile/jose-falck-zepeda
Blog:
http://socioeconomicbiosafety.wordpress.com/
Follow me on Twitter: @josefalck