GMO Crops: To Grow or Not to Grow?

1. GMO Crops: To Grow or Not to Grow? Marshall A. Martin Professor and Associate Head Department of Agricultural Economics Purdue University Crop Production Clinic Madison County, Indiana December 7, 2000

2. Organization of Today’s Presentation • GMO crops

3. Organization of Today’s Presentation • GMO crops • Public attitudes towards GMO crops

4. Organization of Today’s Presentation • GMO crops • Public attitudes towards GMO crops • Economics of transgenic corn adoption

5. Organization of Today’s Presentation • GMO crops • Public attitudes towards GMO crops • Economics of transgenic corn adoption • Crop segregation

6. Organization of Today’s Presentation • GMO crops • Public attitudes towards GMO crops • Economics of transgenic corn adoption • Crop segregation • The Starlink case

7. What is a GMO crop? • Transfer of a gene from a soil bacteria that codes for a protein

8. What is a GMO crop? • Transfer of a gene from a soil bacteria that codes for a protein • Protein becomes a toxin and kills selected insects

9. Insect Control with Biotechnology • Insect resistant crops commercially available, e.g., Bt corn, cotton, and potatoes

10. Insect Control with Biotechnology • Insect resistant crops commercially available, e.g., Bt corn, cotton, and potatoes • Transgenic corn for rootworm control under development

11. Crop Applications of Biotechnology • Herbicide tolerant crops, e.g., Roundup Ready corn and soybeans

12. U.S. Crop Biotechnology Adoption (USDA Survey) 1999 2000 2000 US US IN Corn 33% 25% 11% Soybeans 57% 54% 63%

13. Biotechnology Critics What are the public concerns?

14. Monarch Butterfly • Cornell and Iowa State University laboratory studies of adverse Bt corn pollen impact

15. Monarch Butterfly • Cornell and Iowa State University laboratory studies of adverse Bt corn pollen impact • Recent field studies suggest minimal adverse impact

16. Undesired Gene Flow • Cross pollination

17. Undesired Gene Flow • Cross pollination • Organic farmer concerns

18. Undesired Gene Flow • Superweeds

19. Food Safety • Allergenicity

20. Food Safety • Allergenicity • Unknown diseases or future health consequences

23. Many Europeans uneasy about biotechnology • Strong environmental movement

24. Many Europeans uneasy about biotechnology • Strong environmental movement • No coherent regulatory system

25. Many Europeans uneasy about biotechnology • Strong environmental movement • No coherent regulatory system • Weak public trust in government since mad cow disease (BSE)

26. Many Europeans uneasy about biotechnology • Strong environmental movement • No coherent regulatory system • Weak public trust in government since mad cow disease (BSE) • EU consumers perceive no benefits with potential risk

27. Many Europeans uneasy about agricultural biotechnology • Strong environmental movement • No coherent regulatory system • Weak public trust in government since mad cow disease (BSE) • EU consumers perceive no benefits with potential risk • Protectionist farm policies

28. Many Europeans uneasy about agricultural biotechnology • Strong environmental movement • No coherent regulatory system • Weak public trust in government since mad cow disease (BSE) • EU consumers perceive no benefits with potential risk • Protectionist farm policies • Strong support for labeling

29. U.S. Consumer Attitudes towards Food Biotechnology • About 3/4 Americans have heard of biotechnology

30. U.S. Consumer Attitudes towards Food Biotechnology • About 3/4 Americans have heard of biotechnology • About 1 out of 3 consumers know that GMO foods are now in our supermarkets

31. U.S. Consumer Attitudes towards Food Biotechnology • About 3/4 would buy a GMO food if less pesticide use

32. U.S. Consumer Attitudes towards Food Biotechnology • About 3/4 would buy a GMO food if less pesticide use • About 3/4 support FDA labeling of biotechnology foods with health and nutrition information

33. My Biotechnology Research • Economics of Corn Insect Control • graduate student research • ID-219 (extension pub) • Review of Agricultural Economics 21(2):1999 • AgBioForum, 3(1):2000 • 1998, 1999, & 2000 AAEA Selected Papers

34. European Corn Borer • $1 billion annual damage in U.S.

35. European Corn Borer • $1 billion annual damage in U.S. • Physiological damage

36. European Corn Borer • $1 billion annual damage in U.S. • Physiological damage • Mechanical damage

37. European Corn Borer Infestation

38. Multi-State Study • Indiana • Illinois • Iowa • Kansas

39. Decision Analysis Model • A decision tree

40. Data • Collaborative arrangements • Indiana: Bledsoe and Obermeyer • Illinois: Steffey • Iowa: Hellmich • Kansas: Buschman and Higgins

41. Data • Scouting and spraying costs

42. Data • Scouting and spraying costs • Spraying efficacy

43. Data • Scouting and spraying costs • Spraying efficacy • Corn planting dates • Probability distribution • Yield losses for late planting

44. Data • Scouting and spraying costs • Spraying efficacy • Corn planting dates • Probability distribution • Yield losses for late planting • ECB yield damage by planting date

45. Data • Probability of number of ECB given plant date and infestation

46. Data • Probability of number of ECB given plant date and infestation • Probability of number of ECB per plant given infestation

47. Data • Probability of number of ECB given plant date and infestation • Probability of number of ECB per plant given infestation • Overall probability of infestation

48. Results – Indiana and Iowa • Returns to spraying less than per acre scouting costs

49. Results – Indiana and Iowa • Returns to spraying less than per acre scouting costs • Compare Bt corn to non-Bt without a spraying program

50. Results - Indiana