Plant Biotechnology: Proven Benefits

Farmers Choose Biotech Crops
Since 1996, = farmers have=20 chosen to plant crops enhanced with biotechnology traits due = to the=20 proven economic and environmental benefits they provide.=20

The global adoption of biotech crops has sustained=20 double-digit growth in planted hectares for nine = consecutive=20 years.=20
The 2003 ISAAA report on global plant = biotech use=20 and adoption noted, "Farmers have made up their mind=85 = they=20 continue to rapidly adopt biotech crops because of the = significant=20 agronomic, economic, environmental and societal benefits," = (James,=20 2003).

In a USDA survey of United States farmers = adopting=20 biotech crops, farmers reported they chose to use biotech = crops for=20 the following reasons:=20

To increase yields through improved pest control = methods (54=20 percent to 76 percent of adopters).=20
Farmers chose biotech crops to decrease pesticide = costs (19=20 percent to 42 percent of adopters).=20
All other reasons to plant biotech crops combined, = such as=20 increasing planting flexibility, accounted for just 3 = percent to=20 15 percent of adopters (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2003). =

Monsanto=20 surveys of farmers who use biotech crops demonstrate product = satisfaction ratings of over 90 percent in almost every = product=20 category. In many cases, product satisfaction ratings by = farmers are=20 nearly 100 percent.=20

Significant Economic and Environmental = Benefits
In=20 2003-04, biotech crops grown in 18 countries were valued at=20 approximately $44 billion gross revenue, according to Dr. Ford Runge of the University of = Minnesota.=20

In the United States, biotech crops (soy, cotton, corn = and=20 canola) generated $27.5 billion of gross revenues for = farmers.=20
In Argentina, biotech crops (corn, soy and cotton) = generated=20 $8.9 billion of gross revenue for farmers.=20
In China, biotech cotton generated $3.9 billion of = gross=20 revenue for farmers.=20
In Canada, biotech crops (canola, soy and corn) = generated $2=20 billion in gross revenue for farmers.=20
In Brazil, biotech soybeans generated $1.6 billion of = gross=20 revenue for farmers (Runge, 2004).

Farmers have = benefited=20 from biotech crops through increased yields. Several = examples of=20 improved yields from biotech crops are published, including: =

The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy = (NCFAP) = reported=20 recently that US farmers increased yields by 5.3 billion = pounds in=20 2003 due to their use of biotech crops such as soybeans, = corn,=20 cotton and canola. Increased yields provide higher = economic=20 returns for farmers (Sujatha and Blumenthal, 2004).=20
In China, biotech cotton yields averaged 24 percent = higher=20 than non-biotech cotton from 1999-2001 (Huang et al., = 2003).=20
In India, farmers who planted Bt cotton realized 45 = percent to=20 63 percent higher yields in 2002-2003 (Bennet et al., = 2004).=20
The first generation of Bt maize holds the potential = to create=20 yield gains of up to 35 million tons on a global basis, = with=20 additional gains possible through second generation Bt = traits=20 (James, 2003).=20
Field studies of Bt corn in Germany indicate average = yield=20 gains of 12 percent to 15 percent. Similar trials in South = Africa=20 with Bt corn showed 10 percent average yield gains (James, = 2004).=20

Farmers have benefited from reduced production = costs=20 primarily due to fewer pesticide applications and more = efficient use=20 of farm labor. Several examples of reduced production costs = are=20 published, including:=20

NCFAP=20 recently reported that US farmers eliminated more than 46 = million=20 pounds of pesticide use* due to the use of biotech crops.=20
- Biotech soybean production accounts for the largest = amount,=20 with an estimated 20 million pounds eliminated in 2003. =
The reduction of pesticide applications* on all other = biotech=20 crops in the US, excluding soybeans, grew by 55 percent = between=20 2001 and 2003 (Sujatha and Blumenthal, 2004).=20
Farmers in India who use Bt cotton have reduced = pesticide=20 applications* by two-thirds according to a recent = published report=20 (Bennet et al., 2004).=20
YieldGard=AE Corn Rootworm corn is expected to = eliminate the use=20 of 1 million plastic containers, 68,845 gallons of = aviation fuel,=20 5 million gallons of water used in insecticide = formulations, 5=20 million pounds of insecticide active ingredient, and 5 = million=20 gallons of diesel fuel per year (Rice, 2004).=20
In Australia, the use of INGARD=AE Bt cotton in = 1998-99 resulted=20 in an average of 50 percent fewer pesticide applications = (Fitt,=20 2003).=20
In China, published studies have documented a 67 = percent=20 reduction in pesticide applications among Bt cotton = farmers in=20 China (Huang, 2003).

Farmers have benefited from = increased=20 yields, reduced production costs, or both in some instances, = to=20 create significantly improved net economic returns.=20

NCFAP recently reported that US farmers benefited by = $1.9=20 billion in 2003 due to the use of biotech crops - a 27 = percent=20 increase in the level of economic benefits achieved in = 2001=20 (Sujatha and Blumenthal, 2004).=20
A published survey from the Canola Council of Canada = reported=20 that the use of biotech canola increased net economic = gains for=20 Canadian farmers by C$15 per hectare. The report estimated = the=20 total economic impact of biotech canola to be C$464 = million=20 between 1997 and 2000 (Canola Council of Canada).=20
ISAAA reports that average net incomes = among=20 farmers have increased by US$50 per hectare of biotech = crops in=20 the US and by more than US$300 per hectare of biotech = crops in=20 China.=20
- Farmers growing cotton on less than one hectare = benefit the=20 most from Bt cotton - an estimated US$400 per hectare = versus=20 US$185 per hectare for larger-scale farmers (James, = 2002).=20
Spanish farmers growing Bt corn gained 10.2 million = euros over=20 the six-year period 1998-2003 according to a recently = published=20 report (Demont and Tollens, 2004).=20
Small-scale farmers in the northeastern part of Spain = are=20 receiving up to =80150 per hectare in net economic = benefits due to=20 Bt corn (Brookes, 2002).=20
South African smallholder farmers in the Makhatini are = increasing yields and net economic returns by US$25 to $51 = per=20 hectare due to Bt cotton according a study conducted in = 2002=20 (Morse et al., 2004).=20
Bt cotton in India has provided significantly higher = yields=20 and a 49 percent to 73 percent increase in profits = (Bennett et=20 al., 2004).=20
In Argentina, the average reported benefit for Bt = cotton was=20 $58 per hectare for the two years 1999-00 to 2000-01 = according to=20 a 2003 report (M.G.E. de Bianconi, 2003).=20
Also in Argentina, a study on the impacts of Roundup = Ready=AE=20 soybeans found production costs were reduced by US$20 per = hectare=20 and accumulated benefits through the crop year 2001-2002 = are=20 US$5.2 billion (Trigo and Cap, 2003).=20
The estimated accumulated value of Bt maize in = Argentina=20 through 2001-2002 is US$400 million (Trigo and Cap, 2003). =

Biotech crops have helped facilitate reduced = tillage=20 methods for crop production. Reduced tillage methods reduce = soil=20 erosion, increase moisture availability for growing crops, = and=20 improve wildlife habitat. Several published reports document = the=20 impact of biotech crops in this area, including:=20

The Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) reported in 2002 that, "Nearly = all growth=20 in no-till acreage occurred where herbicide-tolerant crop=20 varieties can help farmers control weeds without needing = to=20 repeatedly disrupt precious topsoil=85 as a result, = society is=20 reaping another wave of environmental benefits associated = with=20 further reducing tillage on our farmland."=20
The CTIC report cited the following key facts:=20
- 63 percent of all US soybean farmers who reduced = their=20 tillage practices since 1996 list herbicide tolerant = technology=20 as the key factor.=20
- Reduced tillage and the Conservation Reserve Program = (CRP)=20 are listed as the key factors behind a reduction of soil = erosion=20 by 1 billion tons per year.=20
- Reduced soil erosion results in less sediment = polluting=20 water, saving US consumers an estimated $3.5 billion in = 2002 in=20 water treatment and storage, as well as waterway = maintenance,=20 navigation, flooding and recreation costs. The result is = cleaner, more affordable drinking water for consumers.=20
- Farmers are saving more than 309 million gallons of = fuel per=20 year through reduced tillage methods, which decrease = greenhouse=20 gases released from burning fuel by more than 1 billion = pounds=20 of carbon dioxide per year.=20
- Reduced tillage dramatically improves agricultural = land as=20 habitat for wildlife. Earthworm populations are three to = six=20 times higher in a no-till field than in a field that's = plowed,=20 while quail can find their daily food in about one-fifth = the=20 time in a no-till field compared to a field farmed with=20 conventional tillage (Fawcett and Towery, 2002). =
A US Cotton Council report in 2002 documented that = since 1997,=20 80 percent of cotton growers are making fewer tillage = passes and=20 75 percent are leaving more crop residue due to herbicide = tolerant=20 cotton (Doane Marketing Research, 2002).=20
In Argentina, reduced tillage methods have increased = from=20 300,000 hectares in 1990-91 to more than 11 million = hectares in=20 2002-03, due to a number of factors which include the = availability=20 and use of Roundup Ready=AE soybeans (Penna and Lemma, = 2003).=20
A study by the Canola Council of Canada found 28 = percent of=20 farmers surveyed had increased their use of reduced = tillage=20 methods by 69 percent due to the availability and use of = herbicide=20 tolerance technology, such as the Roundup Ready=AE system = (Canola=20 Council of Canada).

Other benefits from biotech = crops have=20 been documented, such as cleaner grain and earlier seeding = resulting=20 in higher yields.=20

A published report demonstrates biotech canola has = produced=20 cleaner canola with 50 percent less dockage, creating an = estimated=20 benefit for growers of C$21 million in 2000.=20
- In the same report, it was also noted that farmers = gained an=20 extra C$70 million from biotech canola due to earlier = seeding=20 opportunities, resulting in higher yields (Phillips, = 2003).=20
A study published in Weed Technology reported average = foreign=20 matter from weed seeds in biotech soybeans to be just 1.9 = percent.=20 That's 24 percent less than conventional soybeans (Shaw = and Bray,=20 2003).

Consumers also benefit economically from = biotech=20 crops and consistently rank the reduction of pesticide = applications=20 as their top perceived benefit.=20

In Argentina, Qaim et al., reported that Roundup = Ready=AE=20 soybeans created increased economic value with the largest = share,=20 53 percent, going to consumers (Qaim et al., 2002).=20
Reducing pesticide use in agriculture helps conserve = water and=20 fuel since less energy and water are used in the = manufacture,=20 distribution and application of these products. Fewer = pesticide=20 applications also result in less packaging entering the=20 environment.=20
In addition to reducing the overall number of = pesticide=20 applications, biotech crops have allowed farmers to = substitute=20 herbicides with more favorable environmental = characteristics that=20 help reduce overall environmental impact.

Benefits Extend to Developing Countries
Farmers = in=20 developing countries have generated increased economic = returns by=20 using biotech crops, primarily due to reduced production = costs,=20 increased yields and, in some cases, both benefits combined. =

Insect-protected Bt cotton has been adopted by several = million=20 small farmers in developing countries such as China, South = Africa=20 and Mexico. Published reports by leading agricultural = economists=20 have summarized the economic benefits in these countries.=20
In China, a 1999-2001 survey of farmers demonstrated=20 three-year average increased yields from Bt cotton of 523=20 kilograms per hectare (24 percent) over non-Bt cotton. = Three-year=20 net economic returns per hectare averaged US$332 for Bt = cotton=20 versus a loss of US$138 for non-Bt cotton - a difference = of US$470=20 (Huang et al., 2002).=20
In South Africa, a three-year analysis of 2,200 small = farmers=20 from the Makhathini area demonstrating consistently higher = yields=20 and increased revenues for Bt versus non-Bt cotton = farmers. Bt=20 cotton farmers experienced increased gross margins of 531 = to 742=20 South African rand per hectare (equivalent to US$86 to = $93) versus=20 non-Bt cotton farmers over the study period (Morse et al., = 2004).=20
In Mexico, a study documented the economic benefits of = Bt=20 cotton during 1998. The study demonstrated increased yield = of 0.29=20 tons per hectare and reduced expenditures on seed and = pesticides=20 of US$83 per hectare, creating a net economic advantage of = US$626=20 per hectare for Bt cotton farmers versus non-Bt cotton = farmers=20 (Traxler et al., 2003).

Environmental benefits = from the=20 reduction in pesticide applications have been documented in = several=20 developing countries:=20

In Argentina, Qaim and Traxler reported an 83 percent=20 reduction in herbicides with toxicity class II and a 100 = percent=20 reduction in herbicides with a toxicity class III due to = the=20 availability and adoption of Roundup Ready=AE soybeans = (Qaim et al.,=20 2002).=20
In South Africa, farmers who use Bt cotton can = eliminate three=20 pesticide applications, saving 14 hours of labor per = hectare and=20 200 South African rand (US$18), according to a recent = published=20 report (Morse et al., 2004).=20
A recent study reported a 57 percent decrease in = pesticide=20 applications by Chinese farmers growing Bt cotton in 2000, = and=20 corresponding reductions in reported pesticide poisonings, = resulting in improved human health (Hossain, 2004).=20
In India, the average number of pesticide applications = for=20 non-Bt cotton is 3.68 compared to just 0.62 applications = for Bt=20 cotton (Qaim, 2003).

* Pesticides registered by the U.S. EPA = will not=20 cause unreasonable adverse effects on man or the = environment, when=20 used in accordance with label directions. =

YieldGard=AE,=20 INGARD=AE and Roundup Ready=AE are registered trademarks of = Monsanto=20 Technology LLC.=20