REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation on the basis of Member States contributions, as requested by the Conclusions of the Environment Council  of December 2008
Date: 2011-04-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, crop production, genetically modified organism, marketing, research programme

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.4.2011 
COM(2011) 214 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation on the basis of Member States 
contributions, as requested by the Conclusions of the Environment Council  
of December 2008  

{SEC(2011) 481 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation on the basis of Member States 
contributions, as requested by the Conclusions of the Environment Council  
of December 2008  

Directive 2001/181 on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into 
the environment provides that the Commission should, after 3 years, provide a report on the 
implementation of the Directive including an assessment of the socio-economic implications 
of deliberate releases and placing on the market of GMOs. When submitting its 2004 report, 
the Commission noted that there was not sufficient experience to make such an assessment. 

In December 2008, the Council invited the Commission and Member States to work again on 
this question. Therefore the Commission launched a consultation of the Member States on the 
socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation via a questionnaire. 

Member States were invited to  

– 

– 

Report ex post on the socio-economic impact of GMOs cultivated in their territory;  

Assess  ex  ante  the  possible  socio-economic  implications  of  future  cultivation  of 
GMOs.  

All  Member  States  except  2  (BG,  IT2)  sent  contributions.  Whilst  all  other  Member  States 
considered  the  implication  of  the  cultivation  of  GMOs,  LT  only  referred  to  the  impact  of 
GMOs in food and feed. Norway (NO) and some stakeholders also participated. 

Member States regularly stressed that their contributions were compilations of public bodies 
and stakeholder's views, and should not prejudge of any political position to be taken later on.  

Non-exhaustive compilations of the individual contributions of the Member States are in the 
Commission staff working paper accompanying this report. All the received contributions are 
available in full on the website of the Commission3. 

1. 

OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION 

1.1. 

Data sources 

An indicative questionnaire was provided to assist Member States in submitting their 
input. The questionnaire was articulated around the following headlines: 

(1)  Economic and social implications 

(2)  Agronomic sustainability 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1. 
List of acronyms for Member States: http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370100.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
(3)  Environmental impact 

(4)  Other implications 

18 Member States reported along the lines of the indicative questionnaire. Member 
States also had the option of sending contributions in alternative formats.  

According to the received contributions, the majority of Member States carried out 
formal consultations of national institutions and stakeholders to prepare their answer. 
It  has  to  be  underlined  however  that  answer  rates  were  rather  disparate,  and  the 
contributions  of  answers  over  the  stakeholders'  spectrum  was  not  uniform.  Indeed, 
for  example,  6  Member  States4  explicitly  regretted  that  their  contributions  covered 
only a part of the relevant national stakeholders.  

Contributions  included  inputs  from  ministries,  regional  authorities,  professional 
federations, companies, Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs), research centres 
and individuals. These inputs as received by the Commission were not uniform and 
consisted  either  of  a  compilation  of  views  that  had  been  synthesised  by  a  national 
competent  authority,  or  of  a  unabridged  set  of  answers  from  different  stakeholders 
put together and transmitted directly to the Commission.  

Data  produced  by  the  Member  States  originated  from  a  wide  range  of  sources, 
including  peer  reviewed  studies,  opinion  polls,  field  trials,  outcomes  of  national 
controls, scenario building and analysis, stakeholders and individuals' assumptions.  

According  to  the  contributions,  only  7  Member  States5  have  past  or  present 
experience  in  cultivating  pest  resistant  (Bt)  maize  MON  810  for  commercial 
purposes. RO cultivated Herbicide Tolerant (HT) soybean before joining the EU and 
the cultivation of GM potato Amflora has started in 3 Member States6.  

1.2. 

Analysis of the answers 

In  analysing  the  contributions  received  from  the  Member  States,  NO  and  the 
stakeholders, the Commission identified the following main elements: 

– 

The understanding of the meaning and scope of the socio-economic dimension 
of  GMO  cultivation  varies  widely  among  the  Member  States  and  the 
stakeholders.  The  questionnaire  helped  to  frame  thinking,  but  several 
participants  regretted  that  the  terms,  indicators  and  baseline  for  comparison 
(conventional  and/or  organic  sectors)  were  not  sufficiently  defined.  Several 
additional  topics  were  suggested,  e.g.  ethics  (the  meaning  and  scope  of  the 
term  is  subject  to  different  interpretations  -  e.g.  some  include  added-value  of 
the GMO for the whole society, or impact on third countries). 

–  Many  contributions  appeared  to  be  raw  catalogues  of  the  wide  diversity  of 
opinions  on  GMO  cultivation  at  national  level,  without  further  filtering  or 
analysis  by  the  Member  States  on  the  ground  of  relevance  or  quality  before 

4 
5 
6 

BE, CZ, ES, PL, RO, UK. 
CZ, DE, ES, FR, PT, RO, SK. 
CZ, DE, SE. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
– 

– 

– 

being  forwarded  to  the  Commission.  It  was  therefore  difficult,  and  often 
impossible to pinpoint clear positions or trends at national or European levels, 
and to report them in a statistically relevant way. 

In general, the contributions seemed to reflect polarised opinions built upon a 
limited  fact-based  background  on  the  specific  European  context,  and 
influenced  by  the  initial  positive  or  negative  perception  of  contributors  on  Bt 
and HT crops cultivation in Europe and worldwide. The core of the discussion 
the  GM  and  conventional/organic 
concerns 
approaches  all  along  the  seed-to-shelves  chain  (control  of  GM  adventitious 
presence 
in  neighbouring  fields,  constraints  of  GM/non-GM  products 
segregation  along  the  feed/food  chain,  consumer's  choice),  impact  on 
biodiversity,  modification  of  farming  practices  and  marketability  of  products, 
with a wide range of different views on almost all these matters. 

the  co-existence  between 

Answers  covered  all  the  items  raised  in  the  questionnaire,  though  comments 
largely focused on the social and economic impacts of GMO cultivation at the 
initial  stages  of  the  seed-to-shelves  chain  (i.e.  seed  production,  cultivation, 
apiculture, and livestock breeding).  

The  scientific  literature  and  studies  referred  to  by  contributors  were  mostly 
focused  on  economic  impacts  of  GMO  cultivation  on  the  in-farm  level.  It  is 
noticeable  that  respondents  usually  backed  their  estimations  of  the  likely 
impacts  of  GM  crops  cultivation  with  extrapolations  of  literature  and 
experience  from  third  countries,  with  the  exception  of  respondents  from 
Member States having experience in GMO cultivation, who also referred to ex 
post studies performed on their own territory. These national studies show the 
following results: 

– 

Bt maize yields would increase in regions infested with corn-borers. For 
instance, ES mentioned a study performed by the Joint Research Centre 
(JRC)7 showing that, for some pest-infested Spanish provinces, Bt maize 
growers  experienced  higher  average  yields  than  conventional  farmers 
over  a  period  of  3  years  (up  to  11,8%  in  the  province  of  Zaragoza8)  as 
well as increased gross margin. PT9, RO10 and CZ11 also reported average 
yields increases between 7 and 12,5% associated to Bt maize cultivation.  

– 

RO reported that HT soybean cultivated on the Romanian territory until 
2007 generated yield gains of an average of 31%12.  

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 
12 

Gomez-Barbero  et  al.  (2008).  Bt  corn  in  Spain—the  performance  of  the  EU's  first  GM  crop.  Nature 
Biotechnology 26, 384-386. 
These higher yields were statistically significant for only one of the 3 investigated provinces. 
Brookes, G. (2008). The impact of using GM insect resistant maize in Europe since 1998. International 
Journal of Biotechnology 10 (2/3), 148-166. 
Brookes,  G.,  and  Barfoot,  P.  (2009).  Global  impact  of  biotech  crops:  Income  and  production  effects 
1996-2007. AgBioForum, 12(2), 184-208.  
Inquiry by CZ towards growers of MON810. 
Brookes, G. (2005a) The farm-level impact of herbicide-tolerant soybean in Romania. AgBioForum. 8, 
235-241. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
– 

– 

Other socio-economic impacts on the rest of the seed-to-shelves chain and the 
wider  society  (e.g.  transport,  insurances,  food  industry,  testing  laboratories, 
employment/work  patterns,  administrative  activities,  consumers'  choice)  were 
also largely commented in contributions of both cultivating and non-cultivating 
Member  States.  However,  the  views  expressed  are  scarcely  scientifically  and 
statistically documented.  

Contributions from AT, BE, DE, FR, NL, UK included detailed suggestions on 
whether  and  how  to  analyse  socio-economic  factors  and  address  them  in  the 
management of GMO cultivation in Europe. Several Member States also made 
reference  to  the  legislation  and  experience  of  NO  on  consideration  of  socio-
economic elements in the authorisation of GMOs. 

–  Many contributions underlined that, if carried out in the future, the evaluations 
of  socio-economic  factors  should  also  consider  ethics,  and  take  into  account 
other  European  policies  (internal  market,  Common  Agriculture  Policy, 
environment  protection),  as  well  as  the  legal  opportunities  and  constraints  at 
international  levels  (in  particular  regarding  the  compatibility  with  WTO 
Agreements and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety). 

2. 

ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS ON THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS OF GMOS 

Prior  or  concomitantly  to  the  consultation  process  summarised  in  this  report,  the 
Commission reviewed knowledge of the socio-economic dimensions of cultivation of 
GMOs in Europe and worldwide, through different channels, including European an 
international research programs and scientific publications. 

2.1. 

Socio-economic dimensions of GMOs cultivation in third countries  

Since  the  vast  majority  of  cultivation  of  GM  crops  world-wide  occurs  outside  the 
EU,  the  Commission  services  compiled  and  reviewed  the  current  international 
scientific literature on the economic and social dimensions of GMO cultivation. The 
compilation  of  publications  considered  by  the  Commission  is  available  in  the 
Commission staff working paper accompanying this report. 

According to these sources, numerous impact studies exist for the main types of GM 
crops  available  (Bt  and  HT  crops).  Studies  on  farm-level  impacts  are  the  most 
abundant, usually based on random surveys on farmers in developing and developed 
countries. 

In  developing  and  developed  countries,  the  evidence  is  generally  conclusive  that 
currently marketed Bt crops can be economically beneficial to farmers, by reducing 
insecticide requirements and/or increasing yields, although the magnitude of profits 
for  farmers  can  vary  per  region  and  year  (depending  of  the  importance  of  the  pest 
pressure).  The  relative  benefits  of  Bt  crops  for  smallholders  seems  to  be  equal  or 
higher than those of larger farmers.  

HT crops are usually cultivated by larger farmers and not by smallholders. Numerous 
studies show little or no yield difference between HT or conventional soybean (with 
exceptions such as situations where conventional weed control was very inefficient, 
i.e.  conventional  soybean  in  Romania).  Overall,  HT  technology  reduces  production 

EN 

5 

   EN 

cost  but  the  premium  price  for  HT  seeds  may  result  in  small  or  no  effects  on 
economic gross margin for farmers (studies in USA and Canada). In these cases, the 
rapid  adoption  by  farmers  is  not  associated  with  effects  on-farm  income  but  with 
improved  weed  control,  crop  management  simplification,  facilitation  of  no-tillage 
practices  and  improvement  of  farmers  off-farm  income  due  to  time  savings. 
However,  in  some  cases  (Argentina)  the  cheaper  price  of  HT  soy  seeds  results  in 
positive gross margin effects for farmers. 

Studies on wider micro-economic effects (impacts on non-adopter farmers, on rural 
employment, poverty and household income) in developing countries are very scarce 
(limited to few case studies in India).  

On  the  macro-economic  level,  sector  studies  looking  at  the  total  size  of  economic 
impacts of cultivation of GM crops and their distributions among economic agents of 
the seed-to-shelves chain (seed companies, GM farmers, non-GM farmers, food/feed 
producers,  consumers)  are  less  abundant  than  farm-level  impact  analyses.  Sector 
studies  are  based  on  economic  modeling,  and  model  parameters  lead  to  wide 
variation  of  results.  The  "seed  price  premium  of  GM  crops"  is  one  of  the  critical 
determinants of the pattern of distribution of welfare created by GM crops between 
different actors in the seed-to-shelve chain.  

Finally, few economic analyses have been conducted ex ante on new generation GM 
crops not yet in the market (drought resistant crops, nutritionally enhanced crops). It 
is  likely  that  due  to  the  characteristics  of  these  crops,  evaluation  of  social  and 
economic impacts need different methodologies to be developed.  

In conclusion, economic analyses have provided a good picture on economic impacts 
at farmer level world-wide, but less on social impacts. 

Methods to measure economic impacts should be improved; particularly methods to 
assess  impacts  ex  ante  would  be  particularly  relevant  for  the  EU  situation.  Current 
limitations mainly relate to low number of surveyed farmers, use of partial budgeting 
methods  instead  of  more  complex  econometric  analyses  and  scarcity  of  studies  on 
wider  micro-economic  impacts.  Impact  studies  above  (seed  sector)  and  below 
(food/feed/consumers) the farm level are few. The same can be said for segregation 
rules  (labeling-coexistence  rules).  Methodological  issues  need  to  be  further 
developed to address these topics. 

2.2. 

EU funded research projects to date addressing socio-economic perspectives of 
GMO cultivation 

The  Commission  has  been  funding  research  programs  on  GMOs  for  more  than  a 
decade,  under  the  fifth  and  sixth  Framework  Programmes  for  Research13.  Some  of 
these projects appear as particularly relevant in the context of the assessment of the 
socio-economic impacts of GMO cultivation in the European Union. 

13 

EN 

For  more  details,  please  consult  the  compendium  of  results  of  EU  funded  research  on  genetically 
modified 
(2001-2010)") 
of 
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/kbbe/docs/a-decade-of-eu-funded-gmo-research_en.pdf. 

EU-funded 

research 

decade 

GMO 

crops 

("A 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
– 

Results  and  perspectives  on  the  coexistence  and  traceability  of  GM  and  non-
GM supply chains (CO-EXTRA – 2005-2009)14 

The CO-EXTRA project addressed the whole issue of co-existence of GM and 
non-GM  supply  chains  from  seed  production  to  retailer's  shelves.  The  most 
relevant findings in relation to socio-economic implications are the following: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Technical  measures  could  ensure  that  coexistence  at  the  0.9%  labelling 
threshold for corn hybrids would be achievable on a long-term basis, as 
far as seed lots are pure enough. 

Coexistence  in  the  field  is  considered  feasible  but  highly  dependent  on 
local environmental conditions and practices.  

Coexistence  in  the  supply  chain  is  considered  possible  with  an 
appropriate organisation of the chain, generating specific costs related to 
keeping  the  products  separate  from  farm  to  factory,  to  performing 
analytical tests and to maintaining product traceability. 

Considering  consumers'  attitudes  to  GM  labelling,  in  the  countries 
studied,  between  40  and  70  %  of  the  consumers  wanted  to  be  able  the 
choose whether to buy and eat GM food.  

– 

Sustainable  introduction  of  GM  crops  to  European  agriculture  (SIGMEA  – 
2004-2007)15 

The SIGMEA project aimed at creating a science based framework to inform 
decision-makers  about  the  appropriate  co-existence  and  traceability  measures 
for GM crop cultivation.  

The  project  developed,  inter-alia,  a  qualitative  multi-attribute  model  for  the 
assessment of ecological and economic impacts.  

Results obtained generally demonstrated that coexistence costs depend on the 
agricultural  context  (landscapes,  cropping  systems,  climate,  practices),  the 
share of GM crop in the Agricultural Used Area and the willingness of farmers 
to  cooperate.  Furthermore  SIGMEA  studies  demonstrate  that  the  economics 
and appropriateness of different measures are mainly determined by the spatial 
and  temporal  patterns  of  fields  and  crops.  This  indicates  that  coexistence 
management  measures  should  be  as  flexible  as  possible  and  based  on  local 
information on field characteristics whereas regional and national governance 
provides only general guidelines and rules. 

14 
15 

http://www.coextra.eu/ 
http://sigmea.group.shef.ac.uk/ 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
– 

Do Europeans buy GMO foods? (CONSUMERCHOICE – 2006-2008)16 

The  CONSUMERCHOICE  project  aimed  at,  inter-alia,  comparing  the 
measured attitudes of consumers of 10 Member States17 towards GM foods and 
their  actual  purchasing  behaviour  when  given  the  opportunity  to  choose 
between GM and non-GM food stuff. On this regards, the project found that: 

– 

– 

Responses  given  by  consumers  when  prompted  by  questionnaires  about 
GM-food  are  not  a  reliable  guide  to  what  they  do  when  shopping  in 
grocery stores. 

Europeans  buy  GM-foods  when  they  are  physically  present  on  the 
shelves.  

3. 

NEXT STEPS 

The  contributions  provided  by  the  Member  States  have  been  helpful  in  clarifying 
where  statistically  relevant  data  on  socio-economic  impacts  of  GMO  cultivation  in 
Europe  are  already  available  (mainly  economic  impacts  on  farming).  Otherwise, 
facts and statistics pertinent to the European context are missing to support the views 
expressed by the respondents. Therefore the contributions highlight that, for the time 
being, the present or future socio-economic impacts of GMO cultivation in Europe, 
across  the  food  chain  and  the  society  as  a  whole,  are  often  not  analysed  in  an 
objective manner.  

Based  on  the  above,  the  Commission  considered  that,  in  this  report,  it  would  be 
inappropriate to perform a more targeted analysis of the peculiar items developed in 
the individual contributions provided by the Member States.  

Nevertheless, the Commission believes that discussions on this sensitive topic should 
be  deepened,  to  move  from  polarised  perceptions  to  more  tangible  and  objective 
results. Therefore  the  Commission  suggests  grouping the primary highlights  of  this 
consultation  together  with  other  initiatives  on  socio-economics  impacts  of  GMOs 
(e.g.  research  projects  under  the  6th  Framework  Research  Programme  and,  when 
relevant,  findings  in  third  countries),  and  initiating  an  advanced  reflection  at 
European level, with sound scientific basis, aiming at: 

– 

Defining  a  robust  set  of  factors  to  properly  capture  the  actual  ex  ante  and  ex 
post  socio-economic  consequences  of  the  cultivation  of  GMOs,  from  seed 
production  to  consumers  across  the  European  Union.  A  methodological 
framework should be built-up to define precise socio-economic indicators to be 
monitored  in  the  long  run,  and  the  appropriate  rules  for  data  collection.  The 
pool  of  consulted  parties  should  embrace  all  the  regulatory  and  economic 
actors of the "seed-to-shelves" chain, as well as the wider society.  

– 

Exploring  different  approaches  to  possibly  make  use  of  the  increased 
understanding  of  these  multi-dimensional  socio-economic  factors  in  the 

16 
17 

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/biohealth/research/nutritional/consumerchoice 
CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, NL, PL, SE, SI, UK. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
management of GMO cultivation in the European Union. The expertise of the 
Member  States  having  already  started  reflecting  on  these  aspects  should  be 
taken into consideration. 

This reflection should be set up and implemented jointly by the Member States and 
the  Commission.  Stakeholders  should  also  be  actively  associated  to  ensure  the 
success of this process.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

ANNEX 

Background information on cultivation of GMOs in the EU27 Member States 

Commercial cultivation of 
GMOs 

Events 

Surface cultivated (Bt 
maize – 2008) 

Safeguard 
clause 

Co-existence 
measures  
(as of April 2009) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

SE 

UK 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 
until 2008 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Bt Maize 
Starch 
potato 

Bt Maize 
Starch 
potato 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8.400ha 

3.371 ha 

0 

0 

0 

Bt Maize 

79.269 ha 

Yes 
until 2007 

Bt Maize 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No official information 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Bt Maize 

Bt Maize 
Soya until 
2007 

Bt Maize 

Starch 
potato 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4.851 ha  
(surface registered until July 
2008) 

7.146 ha 

0 

1.940 ha 

0 

0 

Maize-Potato 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Maize 

No 

No 

Maize 

No 

No 

Maize 

Maize-Potato 

No 

No 

No 

Maize-Potato 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

For  more  complete  information,  please  consult  the  report  published  on  2  April  2009  by  the 
Commission on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic 
farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 

EN 

10 

   EN