Agricultural economists aren’t surprised that a U.S. scientific study has found genetically modified crops are good for both farmers’ bottom lines and the environment.
“To me, you really have to look hard to find the bad news (about GM crops),” said Al Mussel of the University of Guelph’s George Morris Centre in Guelph, Ont.
“We really need to understand in hindsight just how significant this has been.”
In its book-length report, the National Research Council concluded that GM crops have had major benefits for farm costs and health protection and have reduced pesticide use.
Read Also
New wheat varieties offer Prairie farmers jump in yield
Three experimental wheat varieties developed by Agriculture Canada are showing yield increases of eight to 15 per cent over AAC Brandon wheat in registration trials.
“In general, the committee finds that genetic engineering technology has produced substantial net environmental and economic benefits to U.S. farmers compared with non-GE crops in conventional agriculture,” the report said.
“However, the benefits have not been universal: some may decline over time, and the potential benefits and risks associated with the future development of the technology are likely to become more numerous as it is applied to a greater variety of crops.”
Of particular note was the reduction in herbicide and insecticide use on crops designed for glyphosate tolerance or BT incorporation.
University of Saskatchewan agricultural economist Richard Gray said he was not surprised by the findings because farmers have embraced GM canola.
“I don’t think there’s much doubt that it does provide a cost savings on the production side,” Gray said.
“Those systems can be cheaper than no transgenic systems and that’s why farmers adopt them.”
Mussel said the greatest benefit for growers of GM crops is not economic but physical because of reduced chemical use.
“I’m really glad they caught that because it’s a really significant thing.”
Gray said the success of GM corn, soybeans, canola and cotton is reflected in the dominance of GM acres in those crops. However, he thinks it would be a mistake to assume the same benefits would occur when genetically modifying other crops.
Consumer anxiety about GM wheat and the loss of the European market for Canadian flax because of GM content reveal some of the present limits to GM expansion.
“Looking only at crops where it’s been adopted and saying there are gains is legitimate,” Gray said.
“But the danger from that is extrapolating too far and saying other crops should go the same way and get the same benefits.”
The report highlighted the potential danger of overusing GM crops, such as immune weed varieties developing more quickly in the presence of GM crops than in their absence.
Mussel said that’s why it’s important for farmers to appreciate this scientific revolution and not take it for granted.
“I don’t think it’s a be-all and an end-all and it’s going to last forever,” Mussel said.
“But you shouldn’t take anything away from GM technology.”
