1 / 17

The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States

The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. Public Briefing NAS Lecture Room April 13, 2010. Study Committee Members. David E. Ervin ( chair ), Portland State University Yves Carri è re, University of Arizona William J. Cox, Cornell University

deborah
Download Presentation

The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States Public Briefing NAS Lecture Room April 13, 2010

  2. Study Committee Members David E. Ervin (chair), Portland State University Yves Carrière, University of Arizona William J. Cox, Cornell University Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, USDA-Economic Research Service Raymond A. Jussaume, Washington State University Michele C. Marra, North Carolina State University Micheal D.K. Owen, Iowa State University Peter H. Raven*, Missouri Botanical Garden L. LaReesa Wolfenbarger, University of Nebraska, Omaha David Zilberman, University of California, Berkeley *Members of the National Academy of Sciences

  3. Purpose of the Study • Study the environmental, economic, and social impacts of genetically engineered (GE) crops on U.S. farms • Identify gaps and future applications of genetic engineering technology • Funded by the National Research Council • Retrospective examination (1996-today) • Geographically restricted to the United States • Effects on farms with and without GE-crop production

  4. Genetic Engineering Technology 3 Types of Resistance • Herbicide Resistance (HR) • Most U.S. crops engineered with resistance to glyphosate • Insect Resistance (IR) • Types of soil bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis) introduced into plant to target susceptible insects • Virus Resistance

  5. Genetically Engineering Crops Nationwide acreage of GE soybean, corn, and cotton as a percentage of all acreage of these crops Source: USDA-NASS (2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009b).

  6. GE Crops Analyzed in the Report • Soybeans • Herbicide resistance • Corn • Herbicide resistance • Insect resistance • Cotton • Herbicide resistance • Insect resistance

  7. Environmental Effects Trends in conservation tillage practices Herbicide-Resistant Crops • Complementary adoption of HR crops and conservation tillage practices • Improves soil retention • Probable improvement in surface water quality • Infrastructure needed to track water quality effects Source: CTIC, 2009; USDA-ERS, 2009.

  8. Environmental Effects Glyphosate-Resistant Crops • Substituted for more toxic herbicides • Exclusive, repeated use reduced effectiveness of glyphosate for control of some weeds • Expect further increases in weeds resistant to glyphosate if current practices continue • Managing resistant weeds: a return to environmentally-harmful practices • Development and implementation of efficient resistance management strategies needed if herbicide resistant crops are to remain an effective weed-management tool

  9. Environmental Effects Insect-Resistant Crops • If replacing broad-spectrum insecticides, then favorable effects for beneficial insects may occur • No resistance of economic or agronomic consequence so far • Greater use of IR crops with multiple toxins targeting pest should delay the evolution of resistance further

  10. Environmental Effects Gene Flow • No or very limited spatial overlap between GE crops and potentially interbreeding relatives in the United States • Future concerns depend on what GE crops emerge in market • Primarily a concern to producers of non-GE varieties of these crops

  11. Social Effects Adequate research has not been conducted on the social effects on GE crops • Social impacts accompany technological developments • Social relationships affect technology development • Structure of seed industry affects farmers’ options

  12. Social Effects Share of planted acres on corn and soybean seeds by largest four firms (CR4) Source: Stiegert et al. (2009)

  13. Social Effects Areas in Need of Research • Non-Adopters • Livestock Producers • Organic Farmers • Property Rights and Ethical Issues • Farmer Conflict and Community Stability

  14. Economic Effects Adopters have benefitted from: • Cost-effective weed control • Reduced losses from insect pests • Reduced expenditures on pesticides and fuel • Increased worker safety • Greater flexibility in farm management • Lower risk of yield variability

  15. Economic Effects Economic effects on non-GE producers are mixed and poorly understood • Purchasing decisions of GE producers affect non-GE producers • No quantitative estimate of economic impact on livestock producers • Landscape-level effects on pests • Costs of inadvertent gene flow • Benefits of segregated markets

  16. Recommendations • Stakeholder group needed to document emerging weed-resistance problems and develop cost-effect practices to increase longevity of HR technology • Infrastructure needed on the water quality effects of GE crops • Public and private research institutions improve monitoring and assessment capacity to ensure GE technologies contribute to sustainable agriculture • Increased support for the development of ‘public goods’ traits through collaborative approaches to genetic engineering technology

  17. Thank you. Report is available online at www.nap.edu.

More Related