100
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

GMO.ppt - Agricultural Biotechnology

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

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

Page 2: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Organization of Today’s Presentation

• GMO crops

Page 3: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Organization of Today’s Presentation

• GMO crops • Public attitudes

towards GMO crops

Page 4: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Organization of Today’s Presentation

• GMO crops • Public attitudes

towards GMO crops• Economics of

transgenic corn adoption

Page 5: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Organization of Today’s Presentation

• GMO crops • Public attitudes

towards GMO crops• Economics of

transgenic corn adoption

• Crop segregation

Page 6: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Organization of Today’s Presentation

• GMO crops • Public attitudes

towards GMO crops• Economics of

transgenic corn adoption

• Crop segregation• The Starlink case

Page 7: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

What is a GMO crop?

• Transfer of a gene from a soil bacteria that codes for a protein

Page 8: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

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

Page 9: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Insect Control with Biotechnology

• Insect resistant crops commercially available, e.g., Bt corn, cotton, and potatoes

Page 10: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Insect Control with Biotechnology

• Insect resistant crops commercially available, e.g., Bt corn, cotton, and potatoes

• Transgenic corn for rootworm control under development

Page 11: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Crop Applications of Biotechnology

• Herbicide tolerant crops, e.g., Roundup Ready corn and soybeans

Page 12: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

U.S. Crop Biotechnology Adoption

(USDA Survey) 1999 2000 2000

US US IN Corn 33% 25% 11%

Soybeans 57% 54% 63%

Technology Adoption Rates

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Years

- %

_

Page 13: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Biotechnology Critics

What are the public concerns?

Page 14: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Monarch Butterfly

• Cornell and Iowa State University laboratory studies of adverse Bt corn pollen impact

Page 15: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Monarch Butterfly

• Cornell and Iowa State University laboratory studies of adverse Bt corn pollen impact

• Recent field studies suggest minimal adverse impact

Page 16: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Undesired Gene Flow

• Cross pollination

Page 17: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Undesired Gene Flow

• Cross pollination

• Organic farmer concerns

Page 18: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Undesired Gene Flow

• Superweeds

Page 19: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Food Safety

• Allergenicity

Page 20: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Food Safety

• Allergenicity

• Unknown diseases orfuture health consequences

Page 21: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Structure of Agriculture

•Corporate control of the food system

Page 22: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Structure of Agriculture

•Corporate control of the food system

•Ownership of intellectual property rights

Page 23: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Many Europeans uneasy about biotechnology

• Strong environmental movement

Page 24: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Many Europeans uneasy about biotechnology

• Strong environmental movement• No coherent regulatory system

Page 25: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Many Europeans uneasy about biotechnology

• Strong environmental movement• No coherent regulatory system• Weak public trust in government

since mad cow disease (BSE)

Page 26: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

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

Page 27: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

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

Page 28: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

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

Page 29: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

U.S. Consumer Attitudes towards Food Biotechnology

• About 3/4 Americans have heard of biotechnology

Page 30: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

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

Page 31: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

U.S. Consumer Attitudes towards Food Biotechnology

• About 3/4 would buy a GMO food if less pesticide use

Page 32: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

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

Page 33: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

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

Page 34: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

European Corn Borer

• $1 billion annual damage in U.S.

Page 35: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

European Corn Borer

• $1 billion annual damage in U.S.

• Physiological damage

Page 36: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

European Corn Borer

• $1 billion annual damage in U.S.

• Physiological damage

• Mechanical damage

Page 37: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

European Corn Borer Infestation

Page 38: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Multi-State Study

• Indiana

• Illinois

• Iowa

• Kansas

Page 39: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Decision Analysis Model

• A decision tree

Date Event

Fall-Winter Seed choice

Apr 1 - June 15 Planting

June 7 1st gen. ECB

August 6 2nd gen. ECB

September 2 3rd gen. ECB

Page 40: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Data

• Collaborative arrangements

– Indiana: Bledsoe and Obermeyer

– Illinois: Steffey

– Iowa: Hellmich

– Kansas: Buschman and Higgins

Page 41: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Data

• Scouting and spraying costs

Page 42: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Data

• Scouting and spraying costs

• Spraying efficacy

Page 43: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Data

• Scouting and spraying costs

• Spraying efficacy

• Corn planting dates

– Probability distribution

– Yield losses for late planting

Page 44: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Data

• Scouting and spraying costs

• Spraying efficacy

• Corn planting dates

– Probability distribution

– Yield losses for late planting

• ECB yield damage by planting date

Page 45: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Data

• Probability of number of ECB given plant

date and infestation

Page 46: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Data

• Probability of number of ECB given plant

date and infestation

• Probability of number of ECB per plant

given infestation

Page 47: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Data

• Probability of number of ECB given plant

date and infestation

• Probability of number of ECB per plant

given infestation

• Overall probability of infestation

Page 48: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Results – Indiana and Iowa

• Returns to spraying less than per acre scouting costs

Page 49: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Results – Indiana and Iowa

• Returns to spraying less than per acre scouting costs

• Compare Bt corn to non-Bt without a spraying program

Page 50: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Results - Indiana

Page 51: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Results - Indiana

• Risk Neutral

Revenue 30% 40%

$300 $4.53 $6.24

$350 $5.28 $7.29

$400 $6.04 $8.33

$450 $6.79 $9.37

Page 52: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Results - Indiana

• Risk Averse

Revenue 30% 40%

$300 $5.12 $6.99

$350 $6.09 $8.31

$400 $7.11 $9.67

$450 $8.17 $11.09

Page 53: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Results - Iowa

Page 54: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Results - Iowa

• Risk Neutral

Revenue 40% 60%

$300 $6.55 $10.32

$350 $7.64 $12.04

$400 $8.74 $13.76

$450 $9.83 $15.48

Page 55: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Results - Iowa

• Risk Averse

Revenue 40% 60%

$300 $7.30 $11.26

$350 $8.68 $13.33

$400 $10.10 $15.45

$450 $11.57 $17.64

Page 56: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Conclusions

• Value of Bt corn increases from east to west in Corn Belt

Page 57: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Conclusions

• Value of Bt corn increases from east to west in Corn Belt

• Very valuable where SWCB are present

Page 58: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Conclusions

• Value of Bt corn increases from east to west in Corn Belt

• Very valuable where SWCB are present

• Resistance may occur if farmers do not comply with EPA 20% refuge requirement

Page 59: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Corn Rootworm Control

Page 60: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Corn Rootworm Larvae Damage

Page 61: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Western Corn Rootworm Variant in Northern Indiana

Page 62: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Soil Insecticides

• One-time proactive application to protect roots

Benefits Limitations• Simplicity • Efficacy variability • Known cost • No adult control ($13-$17/acre) • Environmental concerns?

• Secondary pests • Grower exposure to chemicals

Page 63: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Transgenics

• Insertion of Cry gene from Bacillus thuringiensis into corn genome-root expression leads to root protection

Benefits Limitations

• Simplicity • Resistance development

• Consistency/efficacy • Refuge requirements

• Reduced insecticide use • GMO marketing concerns

and chemical exposure

Page 64: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Root ProtectionS o i l I n s e c t i c i d e Z o n e

T r a n s g e n i c Z o n e

C o r n R o o t s

P r o t e c t e d Z o n e ( S i z e V a r i e s Y e a r t o Y e a r )

C o r n R o o t s / P r o t e c t e d Z o n e

Page 65: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Indiana Research Siteshttp://www.aes.purdue.edu/AgResearch/AgCenters.html

Page 66: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Indiana: 1990-1999 (excluding 1996)

8.809.4510.34

-Lorsban

-1.16-1.31-1.14

-

1.681.531.702.84Untreated

130.82131.47132.36122.02

Corn RootwormTreatment

ForceCounter

Average Root Rating

Root Rating Difference ofTreated vs. Untreated

Average Yield(bushels/acre)

Bushel Difference of Treated vs. Untreated

Page 67: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Conclusions

• Based on cost to the producer, yield benefits, efficacy/consistency, simplicity, and environmental implications, transgenics potentially hold the most economic value for producers

Page 68: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Conclusions

• Based on cost to the producer, yield benefits, efficacy/consistency, simplicity, and environmental implications, transgenics potentially hold the most economic value for producers

• But must have a refuge management plan

Page 69: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Some Considerations Before Adopting Transgenic Corn

Page 70: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Adopting a Transgenic Crop:Production Considerations

• Technology fee

Page 71: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Adopting a Transgenic Crop:Production Considerations

• Technology fee

• Pest infestation

probabilities

Page 72: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Adopting a Transgenic Crop:Production Considerations

• Technology fee

• Pest infestation

probabilities

• Yield drag

Page 73: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Adopting a Transgenic Crop:Production Considerations

• Technology fee

• Pest infestation

probabilities

• Yield drag

• Reduction in pesticide

costs

Page 74: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Adopting a Transgenic Crop:Environmental Considerations

• Refuge requirements

Page 75: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Adopting a Transgenic Crop:Environmental Considerations

• Refuge requirements

• Impacts on beneficial

insects

Page 76: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Adopting a Transgenic Crop:Environmental Considerations

• Refuge requirements

• Impacts on beneficial

insects

• Tillage system

adjustments

Page 77: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Adopting a Transgenic Crop:Marketing Considerations

• Potential premiums or

discounts

Page 78: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Adopting a Transgenic Crop:Marketing Considerations

• Potential premiums or

discounts

• Market segregation costs

Page 79: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Adopting a Transgenic Crop:Marketing Considerations

• Potential premiums or

discounts

• Market segregation costs

• How much premium?

Page 80: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

How much premium needed to segregate?

• Recent Midwest commercial farmer survey (Norm Larson of AFS Services)

Premium per Bushel

• < $0.10 2%

• $0.10 - $0.20 22%

• $.020 - $0.30 28%

• $0.30 - $0.40 26%

• $0.40 - $0.50 11%

• >$0.50 12%

Page 81: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

What does it take to segregate your crop?

• Seed source

Page 82: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

What does it take to segregate your crop?

• Seed source• Planting considerations

Page 83: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

What does it take to segregate your crop?

• Seed source• Planting considerations• Harvesting considerations

Page 84: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

What does it take to segregate your crop?

• Seed source• Planting considerations• Harvesting considerations• Storage challenges

Page 85: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

What does it take to segregate your crop?

• Seed source• Planting considerations• Harvesting considerations• Storage challenges• Hauling and shipping

Page 86: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

What does it take to segregate your crop?

• Seed source• Planting considerations• Harvesting considerations• Storage challenges• Hauling and shipping• Beyond the farm gate

Page 87: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

The Starlink Case

• Aventis request to EPA- April ’97

Page 88: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

The Starlink Case

• Aventis request to EPA- April ’97

• EPA approved- May ’98 for domestic feed and industrial use only

Page 89: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

The Starlink Case

• Aventis request to EPA- April ’97

• EPA approved- May ’98 for domestic feed and industrial use only

• Grower agreements required

Page 90: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

The Starlink Case

• Aventis request to EPA- April ’97

• EPA approved- May ’98 for domestic feed and industrial use only

• Grower agreements required

• Acres planted– 2,000 in ’98– 248,000 in ’99– 340,908 in ‘00

Page 91: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

U.S. Starlink Corn Acres: 2000

• Iowa 134,910

• Nebraska 41,529

• Minnesota 35,691

• S.Dakota 34,290

• Kansas21,390

• Illinois 17,466

• INDIANA 3,564

• U.S. 340,908

Page 92: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Indiana Starlink Corn Acres: 2000

• La Porte 594• Starke 507• Marshall 339• Knox 288• Jasper 279• Delaware 189• Lake 180• Bartholomew 171• Owen 141• Randolph 108

Page 93: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

The Starlink Case• Sept ’00 found in taco shells and

recalls initiated

Page 94: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

The Starlink Case• Sept ’00 found in taco shells and

recalls initiated• Oct ’00 processors stop using

Cry9c corn

Page 95: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

The Starlink Case• Sept ’00 found in taco shells and

recalls initiated• Oct ’00 processors stop using

Cry9c corn• Nov ’00 disruption in grain

industry

Page 96: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

The Starlink Case• Sept ’00 found in taco shells and

recalls initiated• Oct ’00 processors stop using

Cry9c corn• Nov ‘00 disruption in grain

industry• Nov ’00 USDA/Aventis

agreement to locate and purchase Starlink corn

Page 97: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

The Starlink Case• Sept ’00 found in taco shells and

recalls initiated• Oct ’00 processors stop using

Cry9c corn• Nov ’00 disruption in grain

industry• Nov ’00 USDA/Aventis

agreement to locate and purchase Starlink corn

• Nov ’00 new data submitted to EPA

Page 98: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

The Starlink Case• Sept ’00 found in taco shells and

recall s initiated• Oct ’00 processors stop using Cry9c

corn• Nov ‘00 disruption in grain industry• Nov ’00 USDA/Aventis agreement

to locate and purchase Starlink corn• Nov ’00 new data submitted to EPA• Dec ’00 report from SAP says

“medium risk” with Cry9c and “low probability” of risk to consumers

Page 99: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

The Starlink Case• Sept ’00 found in taco shells and recall

starts

• Oct ’00 processors stop using Cry9c corn

• Nov ‘00 disruption in grain industry

• Nov ’00 USDA/Aventis agreement to locate and purchase Starlink corn

• Nov ’00 new data submitted to EPA

• Dec ’00 report from SAP says “medium risk” with Cry9c and low probability of risk to consumers

• EPA action expected in a few weeks

Page 100: GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology

Questions