Genetically modified crops 'have a role to play' in the future, according to environment secretary Liz Truss, who was speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference yesterday.
"If you look at what has happened in the US, crops are being grown in a more environmentally friendly way with less water usage and less pesticide usage," she said.
"I would like us to have that opportunity. Our farmers need access to technology that will help them work in world markets."
Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, controversies about the technology continue. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for widespread public suspicion, the report highlighted.
The results of the study found on average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.
In November last year, S&D spokesperson on health and climate, MEP Matthias Groote, said: "The Parliament has given itself a strong mandate in the upcoming negotiations with the Council of the EU.
"It is a fact, that the overwhelming majority of European citizens do not support the cultivation of GMOs. This position must be reflected in the final outcome of the negotiations."
But there are also plenty of studies showing that GM crops cause benefits in terms of higher yields and cost savings in agricultural production, and welfare gains among adopting farm households.
"Yield gains of GM crops are 14 percentage points higher in developing countries than in developed countries. Especially smallholder farmers in the tropics and subtropics suffer from considerable pest damage that can be reduced through GM crop adoption," the report said.
"Another concern often voiced in the public debate is that studies funded by industry money might report inflated benefits. Our results show that the source of funding does not significantly influence the impact estimates. We also analyzed whether the statistical method plays a role. Many of the earlier studies just compared yields of GM and non-GM crops without considering possible differences in other inputs and conditions that may also affect the outcome. Net impacts of GM technology can be estimated with regression-based production function models that control for other factors. Interestingly, results derived from regression analysis report higher average yield effects."
"One limitation is that not all of the original studies included in this meta-analysis reported sample sizes and measures of variance. This is not untypical for analyses in the social sciences, especially when studies from the grey literature are also included. Future impact studies with primary data should follow more standardized reporting procedures. Nevertheless, our findings reveal that there is robust evidence of GM crop benefits. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this promising technology."
