Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot (2017) Environmental impacts of genetically
modified (GM) crop use 19962015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions, GM Crops &
Food, 8:2, 117-147, DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490
impacts associated with changes in pesticide use and greenhouse gas emissions arising from the use
of GM crops since their first widespread commercial use in the mid-1990s. The adoption of GM
insect resistant and herbicide tolerant technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 618.7 million kg
(8.1%) and, as a result, decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and
insecticide use on these crops (as measured by the indicator, the Environmental Impact Quotient
(EIQ)) by18.6%. The technology has also facilitated important cuts in fuel use and tillage changes,
resulting in a significant reduction in the release of greenhouse gas emissions from the GM cropping
area. In 2015, this was equivalent to removing 11.9 million cars from the roads.
Correspondence to: Graham Brookes; PG Economics Ltd, Stafford House, 10 Prince of Wales Rd,
Dorchester, Dorset DT1 1PW, UK; Email: graham.brookes@btinternet.com
Received February 10, 2017; Revised March 13, 2017; Accepted March 17, 2017.
2017 Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-
Commercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits
non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is prop-
erly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
117
118 Brookes and Barfoot
GM HT crops with these specific broad- Barfoot, 2012, Brookes & Barfoot, 2013, Brookes
spectrum herbicides, that target both grass & Barfoot, 2014, Brookes & Barfoot, 2015)
and broad-leaved weeds but do not harm The methodology and analytical procedures
the crop itself; in this present discussion are unchanged to
Resistance to specific insect pests of maize, allow a direct comparison of the new with ear-
cotton, soybeans and brinjal. This GM lier data (readers should however, note that
insect resistance (GM IR), or Bt technol- some data presented in this paper are not
ogy offers farmers resistance in the plants directly comparable with data presented in pre-
to major pests such as stem and stalk bor- vious analysis because the current paper takes
ers, earworms, cutworms and rootworm into account the availability of new data and
(eg, Ostrinia nubilalis, Ostrinia furnacalis, analysis, including revisions to data for earlier
Spodoptera frugiperda, Diatraea spp, Heli- years), and to save readers the chore of consult-
coverpa zea and Diabrotica spp) in maize, ing these earlier papers for details of the meth-
bollworm/budworm (Heliothis sp and Heli- odology and arguments, these elements are
coverpa) in cotton and caterpillars (Helico- included in full in this updated paper.
verpa armigeru) in soybeans. The aim has been to provide an up to date and
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
In other countries, the average amount of However, what such authors fail to acknowl-
herbicide active ingredient applied to GM HT edge is that the amount of herbicide used on
crops represents a net increase relative to usage conventional crops has also increased relative
on the conventional crop alternative. However, to several years ago and that compared with the
even though the amount of active ingredient conventional alternative, the environmental
use has increased, in terms of the associated profile of GM HT crop use has continued to
environmental impact, as measured by the EIQ offer important advantages and in most cases,
indicator, the environmental profile of the GM provides an improved environmental profile
HT crop has commonly been better than its compared with the conventional alternative (as
conventional equivalent; measured by the EIQ indicator (Brookes et al.,
Where GM HT crops (tolerant to glyphosate) 2012)). It should also be noted that many of the
have been widely grown, incidences of weed herbicides used in conventional production sys-
resistance to glyphosate have occurred (see tems had significant resistance issues them-
additional discussion below) and have become selves in the mid 1990s. This was, for example,
a major problem in some regions (see www. one of the reasons why glyphosate tolerant soy-
weedscience.org). This can be attributed to bean technology was rapidly adopted, as glyph-
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
how glyphosate was originally used with GM osate provided good control of these weeds.
HT crops, where because of its highly effective, These points are further illustrated in the anal-
broad-spectrum post-emergence activity, it was ysis below which examines changes in herbicide
often used as the sole method of weed control. use by crop over the period 19962015 and
This approach to weed control put tremendous specifically for the latest year examined, 2015.
selection pressure on weeds and as a result con-
tributed to the evolution of weed populations
dominated by resistant individuals. In addition, GM HT Soybean
the facilitating role of GM HT technology in
the adoption of RT/NT production techniques The environmental impact of herbicide use
in North and South America has also probably change associated with GM HT soybean adop-
contributed to the emergence of weeds resistant tion between 1996 and 2015 is summarised in
to herbicides like glyphosate and to weed shifts Table 1. Overall, there has been a small net
toward those weed species that are not inher- increase in the amount of herbicide active
ently well controlled by glyphosate. As a result, ingredient used (C0.5%), which equates to
growers of GM HT crops have been and, are about 15.3 million kg more active ingredient
increasingly being advised to include other her- applied to these crops than would otherwise
bicides (with different and complementary have occurred if a conventional crop had been
modes of action) in combination with glypho- planted. However, the environmental impact,
sate and in some cases to adopt cultural practi- as measured by the EIQ indicator, improved by
ces (eg, revert to ploughing) in more integrated 13.9% due to the increased usage of more
weed management systems. At the macro level, environmentally benign herbicides.
these changes have influenced the mix, total At the country level, some user countries
amount, cost and overall profile of herbicides recorded both a net reduction in the use of her-
applied to GM HT crops in the last 10 y. Com- bicide active ingredient and an improvement in
pared to a decade ago, the amount of herbicide the associated environmental impact, as mea-
active ingredient applied and number of herbi- sured by the EIQ indicator. Others, such as Bra-
cides used with GM HT crops in many regions zil, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay have seen
has increased, and the associated environmental net increases in the amount of herbicide active
profile, as measured by the EIQ indicator, dete- ingredient applied, though the overall environ-
riorated. This increase in herbicide use relative mental impact, as measured by the EIQ indica-
to several years ago is often cited by anti GM tor has improved. The largest environmental
technology proponents (Benbrook, 2012) as an gains have tended to be in developed countries
environmental failing of the technology. where the usage of herbicides has traditionally
120 Brookes and Barfoot
been highest and where there has been a signifi- herbicide active ingredient usage and an
cant movement away from the use of several improvement in the associated environmental
selective herbicides to one broad spectrum her- impact, as measured by the EIQ indicator,
bicide initially, and in the last few years, plus between 1996 and 2015 (Table 2).
complementary herbicides, with different In 2015, the reduction in herbicide usage rela-
modes of action, targeted at weeds that are dif- tive to the amount reasonably expected if this
ficult to control with glyphosate. crop area had been planted to conventional culti-
In 2015, the amount of herbicide active vars was 12.6 million kg of active ingredient
ingredient applied to the global GM HT soy- (6.2%), with a larger environmental improve-
bean crop increased by 9.8 million kg (C4%) ment, as measured by the EIQ indicator of
relative to the amount reasonably expected if 12.7%. As with GM HT soybeans, the greatest
this crop area had been planted to conventional environmental gains have been in developed
cultivars. This highlights the point above relat- countries (eg, the US and Canada), where the
ing to recent increases in herbicide use with usage of herbicides has traditionally been highest.
GM HT crops to take account of weed resis-
tance issues. However, despite these increases
in the volume of active ingredient used, in EIQ GM HT Cotton
terms, the environmental impact of the
2015 GM HT soybean crop continued to repre- The use of GM HT cotton delivered a net
sent an improvement relative to the conven- reduction in herbicide active ingredient use of
tional alternative (a 10.9% improvement). about 25 million kg over the 19962015 period
(Table 3). This represents a 7.6% reduction in
usage, and, in terms of the EIQ indicator, a
GM HT Maize 10.2% net environmental improvement. In
2015, the use of GM HT cotton technology cot-
The adoption of GM HT maize has resulted ton resulted in a 2 million kg reduction in her-
in a significant reduction in the volume of bicide active ingredient use (11.2%) relative
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF GM CROP USE 19962015 121
planted to conventional sugar beet. This also Where farmers are faced with the existence of
resulted in a net deterioration in the associated weeds resistant to glyphosate in GM HT crops,
environmental impact (C8.8%) as measured by they are increasingly being advised to be more
the EIQ indicator. proactive and include other herbicides (with dif-
ferent and complementary modes of action) in
combination with glyphosate and in some cases
Weed Resistance to adopt cultural practices such as ploughing in
their integrated weed management systems. This
As indicated above, weed resistance to change in weed management emphasis also
glyphosate has become a major issue affecting reflects the broader agenda of developing strate-
some farmers using GM HT (tolerant to glyph- gies across all forms of cropping systems to min-
osate) crops. Worldwide there are currently imise and slow down the potential for weeds
(accessed March 2017) 37 weeds species resis- developing resistance to existing technology sol-
tant to glyphosate of which many are not asso- utions for their control. At the macro level, these
ciated with glyphosate tolerant crops (www. changes have already influenced the mix, total
weedscience.org). In the US, there are currently amount, cost and overall profile of herbicides
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
the GM HT crop: 20062015) reflecting a shift used to control important crop pests. This is
in herbicides used rather than increased dose particularly evident in respect of cotton, which
rates for some herbicides. The increase in the traditionally has been a crop on which intensive
use of herbicides on the conventional soybean treatment regimes of insecticides were common
crop in the US can also be partly attributed to place to control bollworm/budworm pests. In
the on-going development of weed resistance maize, the insecticide use savings have been
to non-glyphosate herbicides commonly used more limited because the pests that the various
and highlights that the development of weed technology targets tend to be less widespread
resistance to herbicides is a problem faced by in maize than budworm/bollworm pests are in
all farmers, regardless of production method. It cotton. In addition, insecticides were widely
is also interesting to note that since the mid considered to have limited effectiveness against
2000s, the average amount of herbicide active some pests in maize crops (eg, stalk borers)
ingredient used on GM HT cotton in the US because the pests occur where sprays are not
has increased through a combination of addi- effective (eg, inside stalks). As a result of these
tional usage of glyphosate (about a 30% factors, the proportion of the maize crop in
increase in usage per hectare) in conjunction most GM IR user countries that typically
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
with increasing use of other herbicides. All of received insecticide treatments before the avail-
the GM HT crop area planted to seed tolerant ability of GM IR technology was much lower
to glyphosate received treatments of glyphosate than the share of the cotton crops receiving
and at least one of the next 5 most used herbi- insecticide treatments (e.g., in the US, no more
cides (trifluralin, acetochlor, diuron, flumioxa- than 10% of the maize crop typically received
zin and paraquat). This compares with 2006, insecticide treatments targeted at stalk boring
when only three-quarters of the glyphosate tol- pests and about 3040% of the crop annually
erant crop received at least one treatment from received treatments of rootworm).
the next 5 most used herbicides (2 4-D, triflura-
lin, pyrithiobic, pendimethalin and diuron). In
other words, a quarter of the glyphosate tolerant TABLE 5. GM IR maize: Summary of active
crop used only glyphosate for weed control in ingredient usage and associated EIQ changes
2006 compared with none of the crop relying 19962015.
solely on glyphosate in 2015. This suggests
that US cotton farmers are increasingly using Change in % change in
active amount of % change
additional herbicides with different modes of ingredient use active in EIQ
action for managing weed resistance (to Country (million kg) ingredient used indicator
glyphosate).
US 65.9 47.8 50.9
Relative to the conventional alternative, the
Canada 0.71 92.2 65.1
environmental profile of GM HT crop use has, Spain 0.58 36.4 20.7
nevertheless, continued to offer important South Africa 1.8 68.1 68.1
advantages and in most cases, provides an Brazil 17.9 88.6 88.6
Colombia 0.18 66.3 66.3
improved environmental profile compared with
Aggregate 87.1 53.3 57.7
the conventional alternative (as measured by impact: all
the EIQ indicator). countries
Notes:
1. Negative sign D reduction in usage or EIQ improvement. Positive
sign D increase in usage or worse EIQ value
GM IR Crops
2. Other countries using GM IR maize Argentina, Uruguay, Para-
guay, Honduras and the Philippines, not included due to lack of data
The main way in which these technologies and/or little or no history of using insecticides to control various pests
have impacted on the environment has been 3. % change in active ingredient usage and field EIQ values relates
through reduced insecticide use between 1996 to insecticides typically used to target lepidopteran pests (and root-
worm in the US and Canada) only. Some of these active ingredients
and 2015 (Table 5 and Table 6) with the GM are, however, sometimes used to control to other pests that the GM
IR technology effectively replacing insecticides IR technology does not target
124 Brookes and Barfoot
TABLE 6. GMIR cotton: Summary of active soybeans was 3.6 million kg (1.4% of total soy-
ingredient usage and associated EIQ changes bean insecticide use), with an associated envi-
19962015. ronmental benefit, as measured by the EIQ
indicator saving of 4.3%.
Change in % change in
active amount of % change
ingredient use active in EIQ Aggregated (Global Level) Impacts
Country (million kg) ingredient used indicator
reduced tillage or no tillage (RT/NT) farming sys- systems in North and South America, facili-
tems facilitated by GM HT crops, have resulted in tated by GM HT crops (especially in soybeans)
permanent savings in carbon dioxide emissions. has improved growers ability to control com-
In 2015, this amounted to a saving of peting weeds, reducing the need to rely on soil
2,819 million kg of carbon dioxide, arising from cultivation and seed-bed preparation as means
reduced fuel use of 1,056 million liters (Table 7). to getting good levels of weed control. As a
These savings are equivalent to taking result, as well as tractor fuel use for tillage
1.25 million cars off the road for one year. being reduced, soil quality has been enhanced
The largest fuel use-related reductions in car- and levels of soil erosion cut. In turn, more car-
bon dioxide emissions have come from the adop- bon remains in the soil and this leads to lower
tion of GM HT technology in soybeans and how GHG emissions.
it has facilitated a switch to RT/NT production Based on savings arising from the rapid
systems with their reduced soil cultivation prac- adoption of RT/NT farming systems in North
tices (77% of total savings 19962015). These and South America, an extra 6,513 million kg
savings have been greatest in South America. of soil carbon is estimated to have been seques-
Over the period 1996 to 2015, the cumulative tered in 2015 (equivalent to 23,900 million kg
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
permanent reduction in fuel use has been about of carbon dioxide that has not been released
26,221 million kg of carbon dioxide, arising into the global atmosphere). These savings are
from reduced fuel use of 9,823 million liters. In equivalent to taking 10.6 million cars off the
terms of car equivalents, this is equal to taking road for one year (Table 8).
11.65 million cars off the road for a year. The additional amount of soil carbon seques-
tered since 1996 has been equivalent to
227,208 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that
Additional Soil Carbon Storage/ has not been released into the global atmo-
Sequestration sphere. Readers should note that these esti-
mates are based on fairly conservative
As indicated earlier, the widespread adop- assumptions and therefore the true values could
tion and maintenance of RT/NT production be higher. Also, some of the additional soil
TABLE 7. Carbon storage/sequestration from reduced fuel use with GM crops 2015.
Notes:
1. Assumption: an average family car produces 150 g of carbon dioxide per km. A car does an average of 15,000 km/year and therefore pro-
duces 2,250 kg of carbon dioxide/year
2. GM IR cotton. Burkina Faso, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and China excluded because insecticides assumed to be applied by hand, using
back pack sprayers
126 Brookes and Barfoot
carbon sequestration gains from RT/NT sys- It is, nevertheless, not possible to confidently
tems may be lost if subsequent ploughing of estimate cumulative soil sequestration gains
the land occurs. that take into account reversions to conven-
Estimating the possible losses that may tional tillage because of a lack of data. Conse-
arise from subsequent ploughing would be quently, the estimate provided of
complex and difficult to undertake. This fac- 227,208 million kg of carbon dioxide not
tor should be taken into account when using released into the atmosphere should be treated
the estimates presented in this paper. It with caution.
should also be noted that this soil carbon sav- Aggregating the carbon sequestration bene-
ing is based on savings arising from the rapid fits from reduced fuel use and additional soil
adoption of RT/NT farming systems, for carbon storage, the total carbon dioxide savings
which the availability of GM HT technology, in 2015 are equal to about 26,719 million kg,
has been cited by many farmers as an impor- equivalent to taking 11.88 million cars off the
tant facilitator. GM HT technology has there- road for a year. This is equal to 41% of regis-
fore probably been an important contributor tered cars in the UK.
to this increase in soil carbon sequestration,
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
the environmental impact associated with of the environmental impact of pesticide usage
herbicide use, important changes in the changes with GM crops includes consideration
profile of herbicides used have occurred, of measures taken by farmers to address issues
in favor of more environmentally benign of weed resistance to the main herbicide
products. Secondly, the technology has (glyphosate) used with GM HT crops.
facilitated changes in farming systems, by
enabling farmers to BETTER capitalise on
the availability of a low cost, broad-spec- Methodology: Environmental Impacts from
trum herbicide (glyphosate) and move Insecticide and Herbicide Use Changes
away from conventional to RT/NT pro-
duction systems in both North and South Assessment of the impact of GM crops on
America. This change in production sys- insecticide and herbicide use requires compari-
tem has reduced levels of GHG emissions sons of the respective weed and pest control
from reduced tractor fuel use and addi- measures used on GM versus the conventional
tional soil carbon sequestration. alternative form of production. This presents
several challenges relating to availability and
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
crop was only 6%, 7%, 6% and 7% respectively farmers (eg, of maize in the US) have
for soybean, maize, cotton and canola, with the benefited from this lower level of pest
conventional share having been below 50% of infestation and the associated reduced
the total since 1999 in respect of the soybean need to apply insecticides. (Hutchison
crop, since 2001 for the cotton and canola et al., 2010)
crops, and since 2007 for the maize crop Some of the farmers using GM traits have
(source: USDA - note the conventional share experienced improvements in pest/weed
refers to not using GM HT technology, with control from using this technology relative
some of the conventional crops using crop to the conventional control methods previ-
biotechnology-traited seed providing GM ously used. If these farmers were to now
insect resistance only). switch back to using conventional techni-
The reasons why this conventional cropping ques, it is likely that most would wish to
data set is unrepresentative of the levels of her- maintain the levels of pest/weed control
bicide/insecticide use that might reasonably be delivered with use of the GM traits and
expected in the absence of biotechnology therefore some would use higher levels of
include: insecticide/herbicide than they did in the
pre GM crop days. This argument can,
Although the degree of pest/weed prob- however, be countered by the constraining
lems/damage vary by year, region and influence on farm level pesticide usage
within region, farmers who continue to that comes from the cost of pesticides and
farm conventionally may be those with their application. Ultimately the decision
relatively low levels of pest/weed prob- to use more pesticide or not would be
lems, and hence see little, if any economic made at the farm level according to indi-
benefit from using the GM traits targeted vidual assessment of the potential benefits
at minimal pest/weed problems. In addi- (from higher yields) compared with the
tion, late or non adopters of new technol- cost of additional pesticide use.
ogy in agriculture are typically those who
generally make less use of newer technol- This problem of poor representativeness of
ogies than earlier adopters. As a result, the small conventional data set has been
insecticide/herbicide usage levels for these addressed by first, using the average recorded
non adopting farmers tends to be below values for insecticide/herbicide usage on con-
the levels that would reasonably be ventional crops for years only when the con-
expected on an average farm with more ventional crop accounted for the majority of
typical pest/weed infestations and where the total crop and, second, in other years
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF GM CROP USE 19962015 129
(e.g., from 1999 for soybeans, from 2001 for a kilogram of dioxin to a crop is far more toxic
cotton and from 2007 for maize in the US) than applying a kilogram of salt. There exist
applying estimates of the likely usage if the alternative (and better) measures that have
whole US crop was no longer using crop bio- been used by several authors of peer reviewed
technology, based on opinion from extension papers to assess the environmental impact of
and industry advisors across the US as to pesticide use change with GM crops rather than
what farmers might reasonably be expected simply looking at changes in the volume of
to use in terms of weed control practices and active ingredient applied to crops. In particular,
usage levels of insecticide/herbicide. In addi- there are several peer reviewed papers that uti-
tion, the usage levels identified from this lize the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)
methodology were cross checked (and subject developed at Cornell University by Kovach
to adjustment) against historic average usage et al (199224) and updated annually. This effec-
levels of key herbicide and insecticide active tively integrates the various environmental
ingredients from the private market research impacts of individual pesticides into a single
data set so as to minimise the scope for over- field value per hectare. The EIQ value is mul-
stating likely usage levels on the conventional tiplied by the amount of pesticide active ingre-
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
alternative. Overall, this approach has been dient (ai) used per hectare to produce a field
applied in other countries where pesticide EIQ value. For example, the EIQ rating for
usage data are available, though more com- glyphosate is 15.33. By using this rating multi-
monly, because of the paucity of available plied by the amount of glyphosate used per
data, the analysis relies more on extension/ hectare (eg, a hypothetical example of 1.1 kg
advisor opinion and knowledge of actual and applied per ha), the field EIQ value for glypho-
potential pesticide use. sate would be equivalent to 16.86/ha. The EIQ
This methodology has been used by others. indicator used is therefore a comparison of the
(Sankula & Blumenthal, 2003, Sankula & Blu- field EIQ/ha for conventional vs. GM crop pro-
menthal, 2006, Johnson & Strom, 2006) It also duction systems, with the total environmental
has the advantage of providing comparisons of impact or load of each system, a direct function
current crop protection practices on both GM of respective field EIQ/ha values and the area
crops and the conventional alternatives and so planted to each type of production (GM vs.
takes into account dynamic changes in crop conventional). The use of environmental indi-
protection management practices and technolo- cators is commonly used by researchers and the
gies rather than making comparisons solely on EIQ indicator has been, for example, cited by
past practices. Details of how this methodology Brimner et al (Brimner et al., 2005) (2004) in a
has been applied to the 2015 calculations, sour- study comparing the environmental impacts of
ces used for each trait/country combination GM and conventional canola and by Kleiter
examined and examples of typical conventional et al (Kleiter, 2005) (2005). The EIQ indicator
vs. GM pesticide applications are provided in provides an improved assessment of the impact
Appendices 1 and 2. of GM crops on the environment when com-
The most common way in which environ- pared with only examining changes in volume
mental impact associated with pesticide use of active ingredient applied, because it draws
changes with GM crops has typically been pre- on some of the key toxicity and environmental
sented in the literature has been in terms of the exposure data related to individual products, as
volume (quantity) of pesticide applied. applicable to impacts on farm workers, con-
Although the amount of pesticide applied to a sumers and ecology.
crop is one way of trying to measure the envi- The authors of this analysis have also used
ronmental impact of pesticide use, it is not a the EIQ indicator now for several years because
good measure of environmental impact because it:
the toxicity of each pesticide is not directly
related to the amount (weight) applied. For Summarizes significant amounts of infor-
example, the environmental impact of applying mation on pesticide impact into a single
130 Brookes and Barfoot
value that, with data on usage rates ingredient applied. In this paper, the EIQ indi-
(amount of active used per hectare) can be cator is used in conjunction with examining
readily used to make comparisons between changes in the volume of pesticide active ingre-
different production systems across many dient applied.
regions and countries; Detailed examples of the relevant amounts
Provides an improved assessment of the of active ingredient used and their associated
impact of GM crops on the environment field EIQ values for GM vs. conventional
when compared with only examining crops for the year 2015 are presented in
changes in volume of active ingredient Appendix 2.
applied, because it draws on some of the
key toxicity and environmental exposure
data related to individual products, as Methodology: Impact of Greenhouse Gas
applicable to impacts on farm workers, Emissions
consumers and ecology.
The methodology used to assess impact on
The authors, do, however acknowledge that greenhouse gas emissions combines reviews of
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
the EIQ is only a hazard indicator and has literature relating to changes in fuel and tillage
important weaknesses (see for example, Peter- systems and carbon emissions, coupled with evi-
son and Schleier [2014] and Kniss and Coburn dence from the development of relevant GM
[2015; Kniss, 2015]). It is a hazard rating indi- crops and their impact on both fuel use and tillage
cator that does not assess risk or probability of systems. Reductions in the level of GHG emis-
exposure to pesticides. It also relies on qualita- sions associated with the adoption of GM crops
tive assumptions for the scaling and weighting are acknowledged in a wide body of literature.
of (quantitative) risk information that can (Conservation Tillage & Plant Biotechnology
result, for example, in a low risk rating for one (CTIC) 2002, American Soybean Association
factor (e.g., impact on farm workers) may can- Conservation Tillage Study 2001, Fabrizzi et al.,
cel out a high risk rating factor for another fac- 2003, Jasa, 2002, Reicosky, 1995, Robertson
tor (e.g., impact on ecology). Fundamentally, et al., 2000, Johnson et al., 2005, Leibig et al.,
assessing the full environmental impact of pes- 2005, West & Post, 2002, Derpsch et al., 2010,
ticide use changes with different production Eagle et al., 2012, Olson et al., 2013)
systems is complex and requires an evaluation First, GM crops contribute to a reduction in
of risk exposure to pesticides at a site-specific fuel use due to less frequent herbicide or insec-
level. This requires substantial collection of ticide applications and a reduction in the energy
(site-specific) data (e.g., on ground water lev- use in soil cultivation. For both herbicide and
els, soil structure) and/or the application of insecticide spray applications, the quantity of
standard scenario models for exposure in sev- energy required to apply the pesticides depends
eral locations. Undertaking such an exercise at upon the application method. For example, in
a global level would require a substantial and the USA, a typical method of application is
ongoing input of labor and time, if comprehen- with a 50 foot boom sprayer which consumes
sive environmental impact of pesticide change approximately 0.84 liters/ha (Lazarus (2013)
analysis is to be completed. It is not surprising (Lazarus WF). In terms of GHG, each liter of
that no such exercise has, to date been under- tractor diesel consumed contributes an esti-
taken, or likely to be in the near future. mated 2.67 kg of carbon dioxide into the atmo-
Despite the acknowledged weaknesses of the sphere (so 1 less spray run reduces carbon
EIQ as an indictor of pesticide environmental dioxide emissions by 2.24 kg/ha). Given that
impact, the authors of this paper continue to many farmers apply insecticides via sprayers
use the EIQ as an indicator of the environmen- pulled by tractors, which tend to use higher lev-
tal impact of pesticide use change with GM els of fuel than self-propelled boom sprayers,
crops because it is, in our view, a superior indi- these estimates for reductions in carbon emis-
cator to only using amount of pesticide active sions, which are based on self-propelled boom
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF GM CROP USE 19962015 131
Conservation Tillage Study 2001), especially farming systems in soybean production reduces
where soybean growing and/or a soybean: corn cultivation and seedbed preparation fuel usage
rotation are commonplace. Before the introduc- by 27.12 liters/ha compared with traditional
tion of GM HT technology, RT/NT systems conventional tillage and in the case of RT
were practised by some farmers with varying (mulch till) cultivation by 10.39 liters/ha. In the
degrees of success using several herbicides, case of maize, NT results in a saving of 24.41
though in many cases, a reversion to CT was liters/ha and 7.52 liters/ha in the case of RT
common after a few years due to poor levels of compared with conventional intensive tillage.
weed control. The availability of GM HT tech- These are conservative estimates and are in line
nology provided growers with an opportunity with the USDA Energy Estimator for soybeans
to control weeds in a RT/NT system with a and maize.
non-residual, broad-spectrum, foliar herbicide The adoption of NT and RT systems in
as a burndown pre-seeding treatment fol- respect of fuel use therefore results in reduc-
lowed by a post-emergent treatment when the tions of carbon dioxide emissions of 72.41 kg/
crop became established, in what proved to be ha and 27.74 kg/ha respectively for soybeans
a more reliable and commercially attractive and 65.17 kg/ha and 20.08 kg/ha for maize.
system than was previously possible. These Secondly, the use of RT/NT farming systems
technical and cost advantages have contributed increases the amount of organic carbon in the
to the rapid adoption of GM HT cultivars and form of crop residue that is stored or seques-
RT/NT production systems. For example, there tered in the soil and therefore reduces carbon
has been a 50% increase in the RT/NT soybean dioxide emissions to the environment. A num-
area in the US and a 7-fold increase in Argen- ber of researchers have examined the relation-
tina since 1996. In 2015, RT/NT production ship between carbon sequestration and
accounted for 83% and 89% respectively of different tillage systems. (Intergovernmental
total soybean production in the US and Argen- Panel on Climate Change 2006, Robertson
tina, with over 95% of the RT/NT soybean crop et al., 2000, Johnson et al., 2005, Leibig et al.,
area in both countries using GM HT 2005, Calegari et al., 2000, Baker et al., 2007,
technology. Angers & Eriksen-Hamel, 2008, Blanco-Can-
Substantial growth in RT/NT production qui & Lal, 2008, Lal, 2004, Lal, 2005, Lal,
systems have also occurred in Canada, where 2010, Bernacchi et al., 2005, Michigan State
the proportion of the total canola crop University 2016, Wutzler & Reichstein, 2006).
accounted for by RT/NT systems increased This literature shows that the amount of carbon
from 25% in 1996 to 50% by 2004, and in sequestered varies by soil type, cropping sys-
2015, accounted for 75% of the total crop was tem, eco-region and tillage depth. It also shows
132 Brookes and Barfoot
that tillage systems can impact on levels of NT systems store 251 kg of carbon/ha/
other GHG emissions such as methane and year;
nitrous oxide and on crop yield. RT systems store 75 kg of carbon/ha/year;
Overall, the literature highlights the diffi- CT systems store 1 kg of carbon/ha/year.
culty in estimating the contribution NT/RT
systems can make to soil carbon sequestration, The soil carbon sequestered by tillage sys-
especially because of the dynamic nature of tem for soybeans in a continuous rotation with
soils, climate, cropping types and patterns. If a corn is assumed to be a net sink of 100 kg of
specific crop area is in continuous NT crop carbon/ha/year based on:
rotation, the full soil carbon sequestration ben-
efits described in the literature can be realized. NT systems release 45 kg of carbon/ha/
However, if the NT crop area is returned to a year;
conventional tillage system, a proportion of RT systems release 115 kg of carbon/ha/
the soil organic carbon gain will be lost. The year;
temporary nature of this form of carbon stor- CT systems release 145 kg of carbon/ha/
age only becomes permanent when farmers year.
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
Eagle J, Olander L, Henry L, Haugen-Kozyra K, Millar N, Africa. Outlook on Agriculture 2003; 32(2):123128.
Robertson P. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation potential of Jasa P. Conservation Tillage Systems, Extension Engi-
agricultural land management in the United States - A neer, University of Nebraska. 2002.
synthesis of the literature 2012, Duke University Tech- Johnson J, Reicosky D, Allmarao R, Sauer T, Venterea R,
nical Working Group on Agricultural Greenhouse Dell C. Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation
Gases (T-AGG) Report. potential of agriculture in the central USA. Soil Tillage
Fabrizzi K, Moron A, Garan F. Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Research 2005; 83:73-94; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Organic Fractions in Degraded VS Non-Degraded Mol- still.2005.02.010
lisols in Argentina. Soil Science Society Am J 2003; Johnson S, Strom S. Quantification of the impacts on US
67:1831-41; http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2003.1831 agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in
Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Livingston M, Mitchell 2006. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and
L. Genetically engineered crops in the United States. Agricultural Policy (NCFAP). 2007. Available at:
2014. USDA Economic Research Service report ERR www.ncfap.org/special-reports
162. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/ Kleiter G. The effect of the cultivation of GM crops on the
publications/err162/43668_err162.pdf use of pesticides and the impact thereof on the envi-
Fisher J, Tozer P. Evaluation of the environmental and ronment, RIKILT, Wageningen, Netherlands: Institute
economic impact of Roundup Ready Canola in the of Food Safety; 2005.
Western Australian Crop Production System. Curtin Klumper W, Qaim M. A meta analysis of the impacts of
University of Technology. 2009. Technical report 11/ genetically modified crops. Plos One 2014; 9(11):
2009. Available at: https://www.abca.com.au/wp-con e111629; PMID:25365303; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
tent/uploads/2010/01/news_pdf_068_WA_Curtin_Uni journal.pone.0111629
versity_canola_study.pdf Kniss A, Coburn C. Quantitative evaluation of the environ-
Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of GM crops in mental impact quotient (EIQ) for comparing herbicides.
Brazil 2011, Celeres, Brazil 2012. Unpublished. PLOS One 2015; 10(6):e0131200; PMID:26121252;
Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of insect resis- http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131200
tant cotton in Brazil. Celeres, Brazil 2009 & 2010. Kovach J, Petzoldt C, Degni J, Tette J. A method to mea-
Unpublished. sure the environmental impact of pesticides. New
George Morris Centre. Economic & environmental Yorks Food and Life Sciences Bulletin. NYS Agricul-
impacts of the commercial cultivation of glyphosate ture. Exp. Sta. Cornell University, Geneva, NY, 139. 8
tolerant soybeans in Ontario. Guelph, Ontario: Author; pp. 1992 and annually updated.
2004. Unpublished. Lal R. Beyond Copenhagen: mitigating climate change
Gianessi L, Carpenter J. Agricultural biotechnology: Insect and achieving food security through soil carbon
control benefits. Washington, DC: NCFAP; 1999. sequestration. Food Security 2010; 2(2):169-77; http://
Hutchison W, Burkness EC, Mitchell PD, Moon RD, dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-0060-9
Leslie TW, Fleischer SJ, Abrahamson M, Hamilton Lal R. Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries
KL, Steffey KL, Gray ME, et al. Area-wide suppres- through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in
sion of European Corn Borer with Bt maize reaps sav- agricultural lands. Land Degradation Dev 2005;
ings to non-bt maize growers. Science 2010; 330:222- 17:197-209; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.696
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF GM CROP USE 19962015 135
Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global cli- Qaim M. Traxler G. Roundup ready soybeans in Argen-
mate change and food security. Science 2004; tina: Farm level and welfare effects. Agricultural Eco-
304:1623-7; PMID:15192216; http://dx.doi.org/ nomics 2005; 32(1), 7386; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
10.1126/science.1097396 j.0169-5150.2005.00006
Lazarus WF. Machinery cost estimates May 2013, Uni- Reeder R. No-till benefits add up with diesel fuel savings.
versity of Minnesota Extension Service. Available at: 2010. Available at: http://www.thelandonline.com/
http://www.minnesotafarmguide.com/news/regional/ archives/no-till-benefits-add-up-with-diesel-fuel-sav
machinery-cost-estimates/pdf_a5a9623c-636a-11e3- ings/article_035dfdc8-1569-5d9b-8b14-
8546-0019bb2963f4.html 1d9e60c96871.html
Leibig M, Morgan J, Reeder J, Elert B, Gollany H, Schu- Reicosky D. Conservation tillage and carbon cycling: soil
man G. Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation as a source or sink for carbon. USA: University of
potential of agriculture practices in north-western Davis; 1995.
USA and Western Canada. Soil Tillage Res 2005; Robertson G, Paul E, Harwood R. Greenhouse gases in
83:25-52; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.02.008 intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases
Michigan State University. US Cropland greenhouse gas to the radioactive forces of the atmosphere. Science
calculator. 2016. Available at: http://surf.kbs.msu.edu 2000; 289:1922-125; PMID:10988070; http://dx.doi.
Monsanto Brazil. Farm survey of conventional and Bt cot- org/10.1126/science.289.5486.1922
ton growers in Brazil 2007. 2008. Unpublished. Sankula S, Blumenthal E. Impacts on US agriculture of
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2003: An
Ministry of Agriculture of the 2005 cotton crop. 2005. update of eleven case studies. Washington, DC:
Unpublished. NCFAP; 2003.
Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Sankula S, Blumenthal E. Impacts on US agriculture of
Ministry of Agriculture of the 2007 cotton crop. 2007. biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2005: An
Unpublished. update of eleven case studies. Washington, DC:
Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican NCFAP; 2006.
Ministry of Agriculture of the 2008 cotton crop. 2008. Smyth SJ, Gusta M, Belcher K, Phillips PWB, Castle D.
Unpublished. Changes in Herbicide Use Following the Adoption of HR
Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Canola in Western Canada. Weed Technol 2011; 25:492-
Ministry of Agriculture of the 2009 cotton crop. 2009. 500; http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-10-00164.1
Unpublished. Traxler G, Godoy-Avilla S, Falck-Zepeda J, Espinoza-
Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Arellano J. Transgenic cotton in Mexico: Economic
Ministry of Agriculture of the 2011 cotton crop. 2012. and environmental impacts. Paper presented at the 5th
Unpublished. International Conference on Biotechnology, Science
Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican and Modern Agriculture: A new industry at the dawn
Ministry of Agriculture of the 2013 cotton crop. 2013. of the century, Ravello, Italy. 2001. Available at:
Unpublished. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican 228584807_Transgenic_Cotton_in_Mexico_Economi
Ministry of Agriculture of the 2015 cotton crop. 2015. c_and_Environmental_Impacts
Unpublished. University of Illinois. Costs and fuel use for alternative
Olson K, Ebelhar S, Lang J. Effects of 24 years of conser- tillage systems. 2006. Available at: http://www.farm
vation tillage systems on soil organic carbon and soil doc.illinois.edu/manage/newsletters/fefo06_07/
productivity. Applied Environmental Soil Sci 2013; fefo06_07.html
2013:10; http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/617504 USDA Energy Estimator: tillage. 2014. Available at:
Peterson R, Schleier J. A probabilistic analysis reveals http://ecat.sc.egov.usda.gov
fundamental limitations with the environmental impact USDA. An online tool for estimating carbon storage in
quotient and similar systems for rating pesticides. Peer agroforestry practices (COMET-VR). 2014. Available
J 2014; 2:e364; PMID:24795854; http://dx.doi.org/ at: http://www.cometvr.colostate.edu/
10.7717/peerj.364 West T, Post W. Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates
Pray C, Huang J, Hu R, Roselle S. Five years of Bt cotton by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Analysis. Soil
in China the benefits continue. Plant Journal 2002; Sci Society Am J 2002; 66:930-1046; http://dx.doi.
31(4):423-30; PMID:12182701; http://dx.doi.org/ org/10.2136/sssaj2002.1930
10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01401.x Wutzler T, Reichstein M. Soils apart from equilibrium
Qaim M, De Janvry A. Bt cotton and pesticide use in Argen- consequences for soil carbon balance modelling. Bio-
tina: economic and environmental effects, Environment geosciences Discuss 2006; 3:1679-714; http://dx.doi.
and Development Economics. 2005; 10:179-200. org/10.5194/bgd-3-1679-2006
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
136
Appendix 1: Details of Methodology as Applied to 2015 Calculations of Environmental Impact Associated with Pesticide Use
Changes
Notes:
Brookes and Barfoot
1. Other countries: Honduras, Paraguay and EU countries: not examined due to lack of data (Honduras and Paraguay) or very small area planted (EU countries other than Spain)
2. Baseline amount of insecticide active ingredient shown in Canada refers only to insecticides used primarily to control stalk boring pests
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF GM CROP USE 19962015 137
Note:
1. There are no Canadian-specific data available: analysis has therefore not been included for the Canadian crop of 695,000 ha planted to
seed containing GM IR traits targeted at rootworm pests
2. The maximum area treated for corn rootworm (on which the insecticide use change is based) is based on the historic area treated with
insecticides targeted at the corn rootworm. This is 30% of the total crop area. The 2015 maximum area on which this calculation is made has
been reduced by 620,450 ha to reflect the increased use of soil-based insecticides (relative to usage in a baseline period of 20082010) that
target the corn rootworm on the GM IR (targeting corn rootworm) area. It is assumed this increase in usage is in response to farmer concerns
about the possible development of CRW resistance to the GM IR rootworm technology that has been reported in a small area in the US
GM IR cotton 2015
Downloaded by [190.107.46.152] at 16:12 14 December 2017
Area of Average ai Average ai use Average field Average field Aggregate Aggregate change
trait use GM crop if conventional EIQ/ha GM EIQ/ha if change in ai use in field EIQ/ha
Country (000 ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) crop conventional (000 kg) units (millions)
Notes:
1. Due to the widespread and regular nature of bollworm and budworm pest problems in cotton crops, GM IR areas planted are assumed to be
equal to the area traditionally receiving some form of conventional insecticide treatment
2. South Africa, Burkina Faso, Columbia, Pakistan and Myanmar not included in analysis due to lack of data on insecticide use changes
3. Brazil: due to a lack of data, usage patterns from Argentina have been assumed
GM HT soybean 2015
Area of Average ai Average ai use Average Average field Aggregate Aggregate change
trait use GM crop if conventional field EIQ/ha EIQ/ha if change in ai in field EIQ/ha
Country (000 ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) GM crop conventional use (000 kg) units (millions)
Notes: Due to lack of country-specific data, usage patterns in Paraguay assumed for Bolivia and usage patterns in Argentina assumed for
Uruguay. Industry sources confirm this assumption reasonably reflects typical usage
138 Brookes and Barfoot
Area of Average ai Average ai use if Average field Average field Aggregate Aggregate change
trait use GM crop conventional EIQ/ha GM EIQ/ha if change in ai use in field EIQ/ha units
Country (000 ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) crop conventional (000 kg) (millions)
GM HT maize 2015
Area of Average ai Average ai use if Average Average field Aggregate Aggregate change
trait use GM crop conventional field EIQ/ha EIQ/ha if change in ai in field EIQ/ha
Country (000 ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) GM crop conventional use (000 kg) units (millions)
Notes:
1. Philippines: not included due to lack of data on weed control methods and herbicide product use
2. Uruguay based on Argentine data industry sources confirm herbicide use in Uruguay is very similar
GM HT cotton 2015
Area of Average ai Average ai use Average field Average field Aggregate Aggregate change in
trait use GM crop if conventional EIQ/ha GM EIQ/ha if change in ai field EIQ/ha units
Country (000 ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) crop conventional use (000 kg) (millions)
Notes:
1. Mexico and Colombia: not included due to lack of data on herbicide use
GM HT canola 2015
Area of Average ai use Average ai use if Average field Average field Aggregate Aggregate
trait GM crop conventional EIQ/HA EIQ/ha if change in ai change in field
Country (000 ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) GM crop conventional use (000 kg) EIQ/ha units
Estimated typical herbicide regimes for GM HT reduced/no till and conventional reduced/no
till soybean production systems that will provide an equal level of weed control to the GM
HT system in Argentina 2015
Continued
Active ingredient (kg/ha) Field EIQ/ha value
Conventional cotton
Option 1
Imidacloprid 0.06 2.2
Thiomethoxam 0.05 1.67
Acetamiprid 0.05 1.45
Diafenthiuron 0.1 2.53
Buprofezin 0.07 2.55
Profenfos 0.81 48.28
Acephate 0.63 15.79
Cypermethrin 0.1 3.64
Metaflumizone 0.03 0.82
Novaluron 0.04 0.57
Total 1.94 79.5
Option 2
Imidacloprid 0.06 2.2
Thiomethoxam 0.05 1.67
Acetamiprid 0.05 1.45
Diafenthiuron 0.1 2.53
Chloripyrifos 0.39 10.58
Profenfos 0.81 48.28
Metaflumizone 0.03 0.82
Emamectin 0.01 0.29
Total 1.50 67.83
Average conventional 1.73 73.67
GM IR cotton
Imidacloprid 0.06 2.2
Thiomethoxam 0.05 1.67
Acetamiprid 0.05 1.45
Diafenthiuron 0.1 2.53
Buprofezin 0.07 2.55
Acephate 0.63 15.79
Total 0.97 26.19
Option 2
Imidacloprid 0.06 1.54
Thiomethoxam 0.05 1.67
Acetamiprid 0.05 2.30
Diafenthiuron 0.1 2.53
Total 0.26 8.04
Weighted average GM IR cotton 0.68 18.85
Brazil AMIS Global & Kleffmann - private market research data on crop pesticide use. Is the most detailed data
set on crop pesticide use
Monsanto Brazil (2008) (Michigan State University 2007),
Galveo (2009Galveo, 2009 and 2012Galveo, 2012), plus personal communications
Monsanto Brazil (personal communications 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015)
Uruguay AMIS Global and as Argentina for conventional
Paraguay As Argentina for conventional soybeans (over the top usage), AMIS Global for GM HT soybean
Bolivia As Paraguay: no country-specific data identified
Canada George Morris Center (2004) (George Morris Center 2004)
Canola Council (2001) (Canola Council of Canada 2001)
Smyth et al (2008) (Smyth et al., 2011)
Weed Control Guide Ontario (updated annually)
S Africa Monsanto S Africa (personal communications 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015)
Ismael et al (2002) (Ismael et al., 2002)
AMIS Global
Romania AMIS Global, Brookes (2005) (Brookes, 2005)
Australia AMIS Global
Doyle et al (2003) (Doyle, 2005, Doyle, 2003)
CSIRO (2005) (Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO 2005)
Monsanto Australia (personal communications 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011,2012, 2014, 2016)
Fisher & Tozer (2009) (Fisher & Tozer, 2009)
Spain Brookes (2003 and 2008) (Brookes, 2003, Brookes, 2008)
China AMIS Global
Pray et al (2002) (Pray et al., 2002)
Monsanto China personal communication (2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016)
Mexico Monsanto Mexico (2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2016) (Monsanto Comercial Mexico 2015, Monsanto
Comercial Mexico 2013, Monsanto Comercial Mexico 2012, Monsanto Comercial Mexico 2009,
Monsanto Comercial Mexico 2008, Monsanto Comercial Mexico 2007, Monsanto Comercial Mexico)
Traxler G et al (2001) (Traxler et al., 2001)
India AMIS Global
APCOAB (2006) (Asia-Pacific Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology (APCoAB 2006)
IMRB (2006,2007) (IMRB International 2006, IMRB International 2007)
Monsanto India (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2016) personal communications
142 Brookes and Barfoot
Annual increase in carbon sequestered Crop area Total additional carbon Total additional Carbon dioxide
based on 1996 average (kg carbon/ha) (million ha) sequestered (million kg) sequestered (million kg)
Annual increase in carbon sequestered Crop area Total additional carbon Total additional Carbon dioxide
based on 1996 average (kg carbon/ha) (million ha) sequestered (million kg) sequestered (million kg)
Note: based on 21.89 liters/ha for NT and RT and 49.01 liters/ha for CT
Annual increase in carbon sequestered Crop area Total addition carbon Total addition Carbon dioxide
based on 1997 average (kg carbon/ha) (million ha) sequestered (million kg) sequestered (million kg)
Annual increase in carbon sequestered Crop area Additional carbon Additional carbon dioxide
based on 1997 average (kg carbon/ha) (million ha) sequestered (million kg) sequestered (million kg)
Canadian canola: permanent reduction in tractor fuel consumption and reduction in car-
bon dioxide emissions (19962015)
Annual increase in carbon sequestered based on Crop area Total carbon sequestered Carbon dioxide
1996 average (kg carbon/ha) (million ha) (million kg) (million kg)
Permanent reduction in global tractor fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions
resulting from the cultivation of GM IR cotton (19962015)
Notes: assumptions: 4 applications per ha, 0.84 liters/ha of fuel per insecticide application.