Charts, maps and infographics

Daily chart

Daily chart: Genetically modified crops

Growth areas

Feb 23rd 2011, 14:57 by The Economist online

Where genetically modified crops are grown

THE world's farmers planted 148m hectares of genetically modified crops in 29 countries last year, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, an industry body. America is by far the biggest GM farmer, with 66.8m hectares under cultivation, 2.8m more than in 2009. As can be seen in our map, GM technology has been enthusiastically embraced in the Americas and in many Asian countries. By contrast, many European countries are subject to severe restrictions on growing GM crops. Developing countries are planting GM crops at a more rapid rate than rich countries. Brazil has added some 10m hectares since 2008 and overtook Argentina as the second-biggest grower in 2010. India, too, increased its area by over 10% last year. The most popular crop is soya, while the most common modification is tolerance to herbicides.

 

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please login or sign up for a free account.
1-20 of 41
Mintuhcu wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 4:22 GMT

The news does not mention about whether the crops grown in these countries are actually harmfull or not....because some GM crops are even usefull to human body under certain conditions.

The most important issue is GM food labeling which is missing in developing countries especially India. That's why GM foods remain unidentifiable. Time has come to talk/write on such issues....especially developing countries should take more initiatives.Europe and other developed countries remain pioneer in taking such initiatives....

Anyway.the name GM crop remain susceptible in human mind and there is need to be more awareness about these transgenic food crops which are sometime beneficial to some ailing population of society.

whenao wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 4:56 GMT

Someone instruct me.

If I see two products, One GM and the other non-GM. I just buy the cheapest.

What is so wrong with my reasoning?

nschomer wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 5:19 GMT

@whenao
Not going to claim to be an expert, but "GM" by itself means basically nothing without more specifics. As the article mentions, most "GM" crops are herbicide resistant, probably the "Roundup-ready" soybeans put out by Monsanto.
In this particular case I can see an argument against the GM version of these crops, as herbicide resistance means that the farmers, in order to grow their crops more efficiently, spray a bunch of herbicide all over their farms to kill the weeds, and can lay it on pretty thick because the desirable plants have resistance (if not outright immunity). This heavy use of herbicides is almost certain to have other downstream effects, like killing off useful insects like honey bees or bleeding into underground aquifers.
So the reason the GM crop might be cheaper is because you can save on labor costs by just drenching your crop in herbicide as oppossed to using more sustainable, but more labor intensive agriculture methods.

In the case of other GM crops, the only thing I see in common that might be distasteful is a form of planned obsolescence in which farmers have to buy new seeds every year instead of buying them once and then producing their own seed stock. So you get a sort of indentured servitude amongst the small farmers who need GM crops to compete, but have to shell out for them each year.
So there might be some moral arguments in favor of buying "natural" crops even if you pay a few more cents a pound.

Feb 23rd 2011 6:27 GMT

nschomer

I agree on most of the information you have shared. Though I plead ignorance on my part on the subject matter, logic would follow: why do most European countries with advanced technologies and know-how resist GM foods? Although I have heard some, I wish the article would mention a reason or two with more concrete sources. However, I'd go out on a limb and say that the effects of GM foods on health and environment is yet to be fully judged, though there are already arguments made. One great documentary film made recently that touches up on this and other peripheral issues, and I believe is well-done and recommend to anyone is: Food Inc.

Spectacularj1 wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 6:52 GMT

in addition to the total number of acreage or 'hectarage', showing it as a percentage of cultivated farmland would be helpful.

Sky.ed wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 7:21 GMT

We can't discuss GM foods without discussing super population. We have to feed almost 7 billion people, everyday, at least 3 times a day. And we are not even feeding everyone...

How are we going to do this without pesticides, GM foods, deforestation etc?

And there is something else: we still have some citizens of developed countries complaining about food prices. They don't accept GM foods, and don't don't accept that poor people from developing world now can eat a little bit better.

Until we find a global solution for super population, we should keep the current solution: grow and consume GM foods.

Jamie Barnes wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 7:34 GMT

While certainly the U.S. and Canada are disproportionately planting GM crops, what this map and story fail to convey is the relative population of the countries represented, what kinds of crops are being used, and -- maybe most importantly -- what percentage of those crops are for foreign markets.

Feb 23rd 2011 7:36 GMT

If one wants crops to grow, one has to control weeds. Pulling them by hand is certainly labour intensive. Roundup Ready and other herbicide resistant crops actually reduce the amount of herbicides used. and at the prices for them, no one over uses them deliberately. GPS sprayer systems also improve accuracy and reduce amounts used.
As to buying new seed every year, so? Improved yields and lower cost of production kind of make it a no brainer.
I find nschomer's remarks to be rather uninformed. Organic agriculture feeds rich foodies. Commercial agriculture feeds the world.

mazx wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 7:40 GMT

Where it said "enthusiastically embraced", shouldn't it have said ‘litigated into submission”.

ajburt wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 7:43 GMT

@ Sky.Ed
Where, in your opinion, have GM crops led to increases in yield?

I'm not a blind opponent of GM technology, but I am skeptical that they are, in practice, anything other than a tool for the major industry players to increase control over the market with I.P. contracts with growers and licensing agreements with other (typically smaller) companies. Monsanto continues to promise that they will come out with truly innovative GM lines; however, stacking the same old traits (BT) and replacing RR with a new event (RR2 - hmmm... without the yield drag they say; a sheer coincidence the patent was almost up on the original round-up resistance).

Is there a solution? What about plain old conventional plant breeding, which seems to have yielded new sources of drought resistance in maize, and the yield gains that our societies have grown under. Plant science and particularly applied plant science (breeding) needs more public money. When will societies and governments realize that we can all live happily without NASA and it's like, but not without (sufficient) food.

mrjake wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 7:45 GMT

@Sky.ed: the problem with that line of reasoning is that it assumes that the main reason for hunger in the world is food scarcity. This is not the case. Local food subsidies encourage farmers to let their goods rot rather than sell them on the global market. This keeps prices within a country down, but puts food completely out of reach of other nations' populations.

@Blog Fodder: You present a straw man argument - namely, that the only two ways to kill weeds are through chemical pesticides or manual pulling. This is simply not the case. Look at the ways in which farmers use non-chemical, organic-based pesticides effectively. Monsanto would love for people to buy your argument, as it fattens their bottom line. Personally, I don't.

Additionally, the idea that requiring farmers to buy seeds with terminator genes is a "no-brainer" couldn't be farther from the truth. As a previous poster pointed out, this essentially makes farmers indentured servants of agribusiness. Worse, it's a huge food security issue. If the vast majority of crops included terminator genes, then the world is at their mercy. If you control the food supply, you control the populace.

The only no-brainer in this argument is a failure to consider the picture from all sides.

BRJensen wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 8:09 GMT

nschomer, please be aware that in the majority of cases, farmers spray significantly, and I mean signficantly fewer chemicals when GM crops are planted. Our 2011 sugarbeet crop is a prime example of this. We have been planting GM sugarbeets, but because of pending litigation, most farmers in my area are choosing to plant non-GM sugarbeets in 2011. Instead of spraying one chemical (Roundup) twice, we will likely spray 4 or 5 times, with 4 or 5 different chemicals. We will put chemical into the ground before we plant, immediately after planting but before the sugarbeets have emerged, and at least 2 or 3 more times throughout the year, depending on weed pressure. It is hoped that prior years of planting GM sugarbeets has eased the weed pressure, but we won't know until this summer. At this point, no one chemical can match Roundup's ease of use and effectiveness, so we are forced to blend together a mixture of many different types of chemicals. Please remember that each time we must spray, it involves more fuel, more time, more wear and tear on machinery and manpower.

The allegation that farmers "lay it on pretty thick" does not make economical sense. Why would I spend the extra money to "lay it on thick" when one simple pass, of a few ounces per acre, is all I need? Every time my sprayer enters the field it costs me money, and I use the minimum needed to kill the weeds.

I agree that consumers should be allowed to purchase non-GM crops. At my grocery store that decision involves a premium price, but please allow me to grow the best crop I can with the least amount of inputs. If you can afford to choose non GM crops at your local markets, I am more than happy to sell you our non-GM crops for a premium. I just sold some non-GM soybeans and am thrilled with the premium I received, but I am aware that the premium I received will be passed onto you, the consumer. If you are willing to pay the premium, I will continue to plant non-GM crops. I grow the crops that the market wants to buy, GM or non-GM. I am happy to produce whatever products the market wants, but please, speak with your dollars and I will listen.

Hubei James wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 8:10 GMT

Europe and Japan use anti-GM food rules to get around WTO rules and raise protectionist fences for their agricultural sectors.

Jamie Barnes wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 8:12 GMT

"As can be seen in our map, GM technology has been enthusiastically embraced in the Americas and in many Asian countries."

That's blatant editorializing. Why not say that " ... GM technology has been found practical and safe enough to use in the Americas and many Asian countries ..."? That's not affirming that the technology is either safe or practical, but it's obviously the conclusion that farms, regulators, and all the entities involved in ultimately using that technology have come to. Use of "enthusiastically embraced" implies it's all so much mad science, which is probably what the author believes ...

10ACBOY wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 8:13 GMT

GM technology receives millions in government subsidies. I have nothing against GM food -- I'm sure that I eat it every day -- but it should stand on its own without giving a taxpayer gift to Monsanto.

Lion Heart wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 8:25 GMT

until know the best GM results that I have seen talking about the benefit( benefit in quality not in quantity) of them is the incorporation of protein to the rice crops in China likewise in Mexico in corn crops , not so long ago the diet supplement in both countries were low in protein content just a small example being follow by must of developing countries and some westerns . Protein content taken trough our meals as pure water is the oil for human machines. We are facing a reality until today ignored for must humanitarian organizations : We are facing food shortage and we will continue like that as long as we have weather disasters , growing population, animal diseases and a significant increase on demand of the same type of meals ( because proliferation of western media , influenced audiences want to eat the same than their heroes),pizza , fried chicken etc. It worth while to try new GM to guarantee the so needed quantity per day of protein , we might face mistakes but it really worth to take the risk

mrjake wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 8:37 GMT

@Jamie: I'd invite you to consider that the given language is actually appropriately neutral - they could have just as easily said "begrudgingly accepted". There are many farmers who have accepted GM crops because, as you stated, they feel they have been proven to be safe and practical. There are also many others that have had their hand forced by the overall lack of seed variety that exists today compared to 100 years ago. This latter group is buying these seeds not because they are safe, but because it is their only practical option.

Consequently, I believe the best that can be said about GM adoption is that it has become more widespread, but making statements as to the reasons why in either direction would smack of editorializing.

mrjake wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 8:43 GMT

@Lion Heart: you raise some interesting points, but I think some care needs to be taken with them. I agree that nutrient enrichment would be one of the cases where GM crops hold as much promise for consumers as they do for corporate profits. However, I think that two things must be eminently clear before this promise is realized.

1) The nutrients in question are actually missing from the existing diet. In your example, are Chinese people really and truly "deficient" in their protein intake? Or do they simply get less than Americans, who by all measures take in grossly more protein than their bodies actually require? I don't know the answer to this, but it's an important question to ask.
2) Are the introduced nutrients actually providing the health benefit as expected? For example, enriching products genetically with vitamin A is only of benefit if it exists in a form that your body can actually metabolize.

If both of those criteria can be met then I think the risk *may* be worth it - but even then, this can only be said with certainty once we know what the possible risks are. However, if that risk can be appropriately balanced then this line of GM exploration could be a win-win for consumers and companies alike.

Feb 23rd 2011 11:33 GMT

@ajburt: Why should anyone expect GM to increase yields? I don't see how that would be possible, since matter can be transformed but not created. What GM can do is decrease costs for farmers by adding desired properties. This can be good for farmers, and not just the biotech companies. I think that's the main reason they actually buy the stuff.

@Lion Heart: You obviously do not have backing for at least one of your claims. There is no GM corn in Mexico. It's outlawed, to protect native corn species from being wiped out. Just look at the map in the article: Mexico has virtually no GM crops. Maybe it does import some GM corn from the US, but it does not produce it. And please, stop saying there is a food shortage. No such thing. There is an income distribution problem, which is different.

faramund wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 11:45 GMT

I think Europe's complaints about GM food has a large amount of support from their farming lobby - if GM increased yields, then either the EU would go back to its mountains and lakes of food, or a large proportion of farmers would have to find a new job.

1-20 of 41

About Daily chart

On this blog we publish a new chart or map every working day, highlight our interactive-data features and provide links to interesting sources of data around the web.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT

Kabuki comes home
From Asia view - 3 hrs 55 mins ago
Link exchange
From Free exchange - March 2nd, 21:42
An abundance of activity
From Multimedia - March 2nd, 21:14
About that Goldman estimate
From Free exchange - March 2nd, 21:10
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.


Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter


See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.

Advertisement