COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying document to the  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: animal nutrition, environmental protection, genetically modified organism, health policy, human nutrition, marketing

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.4.2011 
SEC(2011) 481 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER  

Accompanying document to the 

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  

{COM(2011) 214 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER  

Accompanying document to the 

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  

The 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. 

A  report  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  to  summarise  and  analyse  the  content  of  the 
answers of the Member States and stakeholders to the questionnaire. This Commission staff 
working paper is accompanying the above-mentioned report, and contains the following: 

–  The questionnaire prepared by the Commission about the socio-economic implications of 

the placing on the market of GMOs for cultivation (Annex 1). 

–  Non-exhaustive  summaries  of  individual  contributions  of  the  25  Member  States  which 
answered to the questionnaire. These summaries have been reviewed and validated by the 
Member States, and do not engage the Commission. (Annex 2). 

–  A  review  of  the  available  peer-reviewed  literature  worldwide  on  the  socio-economic 

dimensions of cultivation of GMOs. (Annex 3) 

1 

OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p.1. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 1 

Questionnaire  about  the  socio-economic  implications  of  the  placing  on  the 
market of GMOs for cultivation 

A – Introduction note 

Article  31.7  (d)  of  Directive  2001/18/EC1  provides  that  the  Commission  should  send  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  a  specific  report  on  the  operation  of  the  Directive 
including  inter  alia  an  assessment  of  the  socio-economic  implications  of  deliberate  releases 
and  placing  on  the  market  of  GMOs.  These  implications  are  defined  in  Recital  (62)  of  the 
Directive  as  the  socio-economic  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  each  category  of  GMOs 
authorised  for  placing  on  the  market,  which  take  due  account  of  the  interest  of  farmers  and 
consumers. In its 2004 report, the Commission noted that there was no sufficient experience 
to make such an assessment (the Directive became fully applicable as of 17 October 2002 and 
several Member States had not transposed yet so only little experience of its implementation 
was available).  

Moreover  Regulation  (EC)  No  1829/2003,  its  articles  7  and  19,  asks  the  Commission  to 
submit a draft of the authorisation decision taking into account, together with the opinion of 
the Authority in charge of the scientific assessment, "other legitimate factors relevant to the 
matter under consideration".  

At its meeting on 4 December 2008, the Environment Council adopted conclusions on GMOs 
mentioning among other things the appraisal of socio-economic benefits and risks of placing 
GMOs on the European market for cultivation. In particular the Council conclusions indicated 
the following:  

The Council:  

7. 

Points out that under Regulation 1829/2003 it is possible, under certain conditions and 
as  part  of  a  case  by  case  examination,  for  legitimate  factors  specific  to  the  GMO 
assessed to be taken into account in the risk management process which follows the risk 
assessment.  The  risk  assessment  takes  account  of  the  environment  and  human  and 
animal health. Points out that under Directive 2001/18/EC, the Commission is to submit 
a specific report on the implementation of the Directive, including an assessment, inter 
alia, of socio-economic implications of deliberate releases and placing on the market of 
GMO. 

Invites  the  Member  States  to  collect  and  exchange  relevant  information  on  socio-
economic implications of the placing on the market of GMOs including socio-economic 
benefits  and  risks  and  agronomic  sustainability,  by  January  2010.  INVITES  the 
Commission to submit to the European Parliament and to the Council the report based 
information  provided  by  the  Member  States  by  June  2010  for  due  consideration  and 
further discussions. 

1 

Directive  2001/18/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  March  2001  on  the 
deliberate  release  into  the  environment  of  genetically  modified  organisms  and  repealing  Council 
Directive 90/220/EEC 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This  possible  consideration  of  socio-economic  factors  in  the  authorisation  of  GMOs  for 
cultivation has also been raised by several Member States in the Environment and Agriculture 
Councils of the last months2. 

In order to respond to the invitation of the Council conclusions of 4 December 2008 and to the 
requirements  of  the  legislation,  the  Commission  invites  Member  States  to  submit  all 
information they would consider relevant by January 2010 at the very latest.  

In order to help Member States in structuring their responses, the Commission drafted a non 
exhaustive list of areas and stakeholders which could be concerned. In addition, for each of 
these categories, we have introduced in the annex a list of leading questions which could be 
used where considered appropriate.  

When preparing their contribution Member States are invited to report ex post on the socio-
economic impact of GMOs that have been approved in the EU and cultivated in their territory. 
Additionally,  Member  States  are  also  invited  to  assess  ex  ante  the  possible  implications  of 
GMOs  of  currently  pending  approvals  as  well  as  those  which  are  under  development 
according to the best of their knowledge. One possible source of information in that respect is 
that  recent  report  produced  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre  titled  "The  global  pipeline  of  new 
GM crops" (available at http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu).  

The submissions must be as explicit and informative as possible and supported by evidence 
and data. When feasible, the socio-economic analysis – be it ex post or ex ante – should be 
quantified. In case documents are attached, they should be accompanied by a summary of the 
relevant part and a specification about the argument or topic that is being defended. 

Where  stakeholders  are  consulted  at  national  level  (e.g.  farmers  and  consumers),  we  would 
appreciate  it  if  their  responses  would  be  incorporated  in  your  submission  in  an  aggregated 
fashion.  The  list  of  stakeholders  consulted,  as  well  as  any  other  pertinent  information,  may 
indeed be attached to the questionnaire.  

Please  note  that  the  contributions  must  only  deal  with  "socio-economic  implications  of  the 
placing on the market of GMOs including socio-economic benefits and risks and agronomic 
sustainability"  for  each  category  of  GMOs.  These  contributions  should  cover  cultivation  of 
GMOs and placing on the market of GM seeds.  

If  you  choose  to  fill  in  the  annexed  questionnaire,  please  consider  that  answers  should  be 
broken down by the purpose of the genetic modification (herbicide tolerant, insect resistance, 
etc) if this affects the content of the responses.  

DEADLINE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS: January 2010 

2 

Environment  Council  of  2  March  2009,  Agriculture  Council  of  23  March  2009  and  Environment 
Council of 25 June 2009 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
B - Contact Details 

Member State:  

Name of ministry/ies contact Person/s: 

Contact Address: 

Telephone: 

E-mail Address 

Fax:  

C – Areas and stakeholders on which  
Member States are invited to comment 

For each question, answers should be broken down:  

- by the purpose of the genetic modification if this affects the content of the responses, 

- between ex ante and ex post considerations. 

1. - Economic and social implications 

Upstream  

1.1. Farmers 

For  each  question,  answers  can  be  broken  down  by  the  range  of  relevant  agricultural 
stakeholders farmers  

- farmers cultivating GM crops;  

- and/or conventional crops; 

- and/or organic crops; 

- beekeepers; 

- seed producers producing GM seeds; 

- seed producers producing conventional seeds; 

- seed producers producing organic seeds; 

… 

Has GMO cultivation an impact regarding the following topics? If so, which one?  

- farmers' revenues (output prices and agricultural yields); 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- farmers' production costs; 

- labour flexibility; 

- quality of the harvest (e.g.mycotoxines); 

- cost of alternative pest and/or weed control programmes; 

- price discrimination between GM and non-GM harvest;  

- availability of seeds and seed prices; 

- dependence on the seed industry; 

-  farmers'  privilege  (as  established  by Article  14  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2100/94  on 
Community plant variety rights) to use farm-saved seeds; 

- the use of agriculture inputs: plant protection products, fertilisers, water and energy  
resources; 

- health of labour (possible changes in the use of plant protection products); 

- farming practices, such as coexistence measures and clustering of GMO and/or non-
GMO production; 

- cost of coexistence measures; 

- conflicts between neighbouring farmers or between farmers and other neighbours  

- labour allocation- insurance obligations; 

- opportunities to sell the harvest due to labelling; 

- communication or organisation between the farmers; 

- farmer training; 

- beekeeping industry.  

Any other impacts you would like to mention:  

1.2. Seed industry 

For  each  question,  answers  can  be  broken  down  by  the  range  of  relevant  stakeholders, 
including:  

-  plant breeders; 

- multiplying companies; 

- seed producing farmers;  

- seed distributors; 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
And/or: 

- GM seeds; 

- conventional seeds; 

- organic seeds; 

And/or: 

- industrial / arable crops; 

- vegetable crops… 

Has GMO cultivation an impact regarding the following topics? If so, which one? 

- employment, turn over, profits;  

- the production of seeds (easiness/difficulty to find seed producers, easiness/difficulty 

to find areas to produce these seeds…); 

- marketing of seeds; 

- the protection of plant breeders rights; - the protection of plant genetic resources. 

Does the marketing of GM seeds have an impact on the seed industry and its structure in the 
EU  (size  of  companies,  business  concentration,  competition  policy)?  Please  specify  per 
sector. 

- for plant breeders; 

- for seed multiplication; 

- for seed producers; 

- for the availability of conventional and organic seeds; 

- creation/suppression of barriers for new suppliers;  

- market segmentation. 

Any other impact you would like to mention: 

Downstream 

1.3. Consumers 

Has GMO cultivation any impact regarding the following topics? If so, which one? 

- consumer choice (regarding quality and diversity of products); 

- the price of the goods; 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- consumer information and protection; 

Any other impact you would like to mention: 

1.4. Cooperatives and grain handling companies 

Has GMO cultivation any impact regarding the following topics? If so, which one?  

- work organisation; 

- handling and storage; 

- transport; 

- administrative requirements on business or administrative complexity. 

Any other impact you would like to mention: 

1.5. Food and feed industry  

Has GMO cultivation any impact regarding the following topics? If so, which one? 

- range of products on offer; 

- employment, turn over, profits; 

- work organisation; 

- crop handling (drying, storage, transport, processing, etc...); 

- administrative requirements on business or administrative complexity;  

Any other impact you would like to mention: 

1.6. Transport companies 

Has GMO cultivation any impact regarding carriers (insurance, cleaning, separate lines...)? If 
so, which one? 

1.7. Insurance companies 

Does the GMO cultivation have any impact regarding insurance companies (e.g. in terms of 
developing new products)? If so, which one? 

1.8. Laboratories 

Has GMO cultivation any impact regarding the following topics? If so, which one? 

- employment, turn over, profits; 

- feasibility of analyses; 

- time necessary to provide the results; 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
- prices of the analyses. 

Any other impact you would like to mention: 

1.9. Innovation and research 

Do GMO cultivation and the technology spill over have an impact on the following topics? If 
so, which one? 

-  investment  in  plant  research,  number  of  patents  held  by  European  organisations 
(public or private bodies); 

- investment in research in minor crops; 

- employment in the R&D centres in the EU; 

-  use  of  non-GM  modern  breeding  techniques  (e.g.  identification  of  molecular 
markers); 

- access to genetic resources; 

-  access  to  new  knowledge  (molecular  markers,  use  of  new  varieties  in  breeding 
programmes, etc.). 

1.10. Public administration 

Has GMO cultivation any impact regarding the actions of the national public administrations 
and  the  necessary  budget  (national  and  local  level)  for  example  policing  and  enforcement 
costs     

Any other impact you would like to mention: 

Economic context 

1.11. Internal market 

Does the placing on the market of GMO seeds have an impact on the functioning of the EU 
internal market on seeds? If so, which one?    

Does  it  have  an  impact  on  the  internal  markets  for  services  (if  so  which  impact  and  which 
services), for agriculture products and on workers' mobility? If so, which one? 

Does  GMO  cultivation  have  an 
(emergence/disappearance)?  

impact  on  monopolies? 

If 

so,  which  ones 

Does it provoke cross-border investment flows (including relocation of economic activity)? 

Any other impact you would like to mention: 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
1.12. Specific regions and sectors 

Answers  can  be  broken  down  on  the  purpose  of  the  level  (national,  regional,  local)  and 
according to region. 

Has GMO cultivation any regional and local impact in those regions regarding the following 
topics. If so, which one?   

- agriculture incomes; 

- farms' size;  

- the farm production practices (e.g. increase or decrease of monoculture); 

- the reputation regarding other commercial activities of the region/localities. 

Any other impact you would like to mention: 

2. - Agronomic sustainability 

2.1 Agricultural inputs 

Does the cultivation of EU approved GMOs for cultivation have an impact regarding the use 
of pesticides against target insect pests (i.e. corn borer)?  

Does the placing on the market of GMOs have an impact, and if so which ones, regarding the 
use of pesticides or/and on the patterns of use of chemical herbicides? 

2.2. Biodiversity, flora, fauna and landscapes (other impacts than the ones considered in 
the environmental risk assessment carried out under Directive 2001/18 and Regulation 
(EC) No 1829/2003)  

Does  the  cultivation  of  EU  approved  GMOs  have  an  impact  regarding  the  number  of  non 
agriculture species/varieties? 

Does  GMO  cultivation  have  an  impact  on  agriculture  diversity  (number  of  plant  varieties 
available, agriculture species, etc?) 

Does GMO cultivation have an impact, and if so which one, regarding:  

- protected or endangered species; 

- their habitats; 

- ecologically sensitive areas; 

Does GMO cultivation have an impact, and if so which one, regarding:  

- migration routes;  

- ecological corridors;  

- buffer zones. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Does GMO cultivation have an impact, and if so which one, regarding:  

- biodiversity;  

- flora;  

- fauna;  

- landscapes. 

Any other impacts you would like to mention: 

2.3. Renewable or non-renewable resources 

Does the placing on the market of GMOs have an impact, if so which ones, regarding the use 
of renewable resources (water, soil…)? 

Does the placing on the market of GMOs have an impact, if so which ones, regarding the use 
of non-renewable resources? 

Any other impacts you would like to mention: 

2.4. Climate 

Does  GMO  cultivation  have  an  impact  regarding  our  ability  to  mitigate  (other  than  by 
possibly  reducing  CO2  emissions  from  fuel  combustion  –  see  next  section)  and  adapt  to 
climate change? If so, which ones? 

Any other impacts you would like to mention: 

2.5. Transport / use of energy 

Does  the  cultivation  of  EU  approved  GMOs  have  an  impact  regarding  energy  and  fuel 
needs/consumption? If so, which ones? 

Does  the  cultivation  of  EU  approved  GMOs  have  an  impact  regarding  the  demand  for 
transport in general terms? If so, which ones? 

Any other impacts you would like to mention: 

3 - Other Implications 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 2 

Non-exhaustive  summaries  of  individual  contributions  of  the  25  Member 
States which answered to the questionnaire.  

These summaries have been reviewed and validated by the Member States, and do not 
engage the Commission 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Austria1 

1.  ABOUT AUSTRIA 

o  No GMO cultivation2. 
o  No experimental research activities on GMOs cultivation3. 
o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  Austria  appreciates  the  efforts  by  the  Commission  to  collect  experiences  of  Member 

States with regard to socio-economic effects caused by GMO cultivation.  

o  Many questions were difficult due the lack of European experience with GMO cultivation.  

o  Consultation of all authorities, agencies, institutions involved in GMO issues, as well as of 

all provinces of Austria. 

o  Reference is made to the criteria for socio-economic effects proposed by COGEM in the 

Netherlands. This proposal should be further discussed at EU level. 

o  Precautionary measures should be taken in the EU to prevent the unintentional spread of 
GM plants in the environment and the adventitious presence of GMOs in other products.  

o  Austria  is  the  Member  States  having  (1)  the  highest  share  in  the  “agri-environmental 
program” (more than 90% of Austria’s agriculturally utilised area); (2) the highest portion 
of organic growing area. 

o  A minimum general framework must be guaranteed which allows each farm to maintain a 

GMO-free production (including cross-border cultivation areas). 

o  Due to the small structure of Austria’s areas under cultivation, “coexistence” of GM and 

non-GM cultivation is for some crops simply not feasible in Austria. 

o  Farmers fear of becoming dependent from big seed and crop protection companies.  

o  The  one-sided  orientation  of  the  new  technologies  does  not  take  account  of  the  many 

regionally specific needs. 

o  Politically, Austria thus advocates a right of self-determination concerning cultivation, not 
only  vis-à-vis  the  EU,  but  also  on  the  part  of  Austria’s  nine  Federal  Provinces,  all  of 
which are members of the European Network of GMO free Regions. 

o  The  answer  to  the  questionnaire  is  complemented  by  a  study  entitled  "Assessing  socio-
economic impacts of GMOs – Issues to consider for policy development". Provided that 
socio-economic  factors  are  further  considered  at  European  level,  the  study  recommends 

1 

2 

3 

4 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by Austria, 
and was validated by Austria. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to: (1) Launch a process for policy development which allows for inputs of a broad range 
of  stakeholders;  (2)  Identify  and  conduct  research  on  impact  dimensions  and  possible 
impacts  of  GM  cultivation;  (3)  Based  on  the  research  described  above  conduct 
transdisciplinary  research  on  best  practice  models,  approaches,  and  methods  appropriate 
for measuring and assessing the impacts as well as the normative baselines and criteria. 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  The  prevailing  mood  concerning  GMOs  (media  and  people’s  opinion)  is  sceptical  to 
negative.  Major  problems  in  neighbourly  relations  must  be  expected  as  well  as  protest 
campaigns. Wilful destruction cannot be ruled out. 

o  GMOs  pose  the  risk  of  out  crossing  and  contamination  of  other  crops  as  well  as  the 

resulting questions of liability. Long running legal disputes must be expected. 

o  15%  of  all  farming  enterprises  are  organic  farmers  (19.961)  and,  thus,  faced  with  the 

problem of coexistence (average).  

o  Marketability of the harvested products with traces of GMOs would be jeopardised. The 
same  would  apply  to  GM  free  beekeeping  products,  dairy  sector  and  livestock  (for  the 
latter, GM-free protein feed is an increasing problem; soybean is more and more replaced 
by by-product from the production of bio-ethanol from cereals). No legal rules protecting 
GM free producers against such economic disadvantages exist. 

o  As regards farmer's production costs, no concrete statements can be made due to the lack 
of experience with GMO cultivation. Herbicides associated to HT crops should generate 
higher  costs  for  the  buyer.  There  would  have  no  solid  proof  of  actual  savings  in 
connection with pesticide use. There are even studies that prove the contrary. 

o  Analysis  show  that  breeding  progress  for  yielding  maize  in  the  United  States  (with 
GMOs)  and  in  Austria  (without)  does  not  show  benefits  for  GMOs.  Maize  yields  in 
Austria are even slightly higher than they are in the U.S.A. 

o  There are conceivable positive impacts on harvest quality (e.g Bt crops), but these can be 

achieved also by means of conventional breeding and control methods.  

o  Complete logistical separation between conventional/organic and GM seed/harvest would 
be hardly achievable, thus the cultivation of GMOs would threaten non-GM farming. 

o  Similarly to hybrid maize, contractual obligations of farmers concerning the purchasing of 

the GM seed (with the herbicide for HT seeds) must be expected. 

o  Probably  cultivation  of  GMOs  would  have  no  significant  change  as  regards  the 
availability of seeds. In the long run GM seeds would be more expensive (license fees to 
the  holder  of  the  patent).  Though  the  strategy  of  the  Austrian  seed  industry  to  focus  on 
GM-free varieties has proved successful, as all market opportunities can be met with it. 

5 

For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
Impacts on downstream operators 

o  Austrian consumers clearly advocate supply with GMO-free products.  

o  Segregation  should  cause  additional  investment,  handling  and  administrative  costs  for 

cooperatives and grain handling companies.  

o  It is becoming increasingly difficult for the food and feed industry to produce guaranteed 
GM-free  products.  Additional  costs  from  coexistence  and  segregation  amount  to  up  to 
13% of the product turnover for oil mills and the starch industry6.  

o  The Austrian food chain has dedicated itself to offer exclusively products not labelled as 

GM. It avoided the expected high costs of establishing a segregation chain.  

o  No insurance available that covers the admixture risk (for GM/non-GM growers/actors). 

o  Public  administration:  there  is  no  cultivation  thus  it  is  difficult  to  make  a  quantitative 
assessment. However, Austria assumes that the precautionary legal regulations will cause 
significant  administrative  expenditure  (specific  expert  knowledge,  checking  compliance 
with legal regulations on GMO cultivation, monitoring on the entire chain). 

Economic context 

o  Austria questions whether a complete free internal market for GM seeds is desirable, even 
though  potential  impacts  are  not  yet  measurable.  It  must  be  reckoned  that  such  a  case 
would negatively impact the free internal market of GMO-free seeds as well as organic or 
other GMO-free food and feed products. 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  International experiences have shown that presumably higher pesticide application levels 

are necessary due to GMOs. 

o  No HT (herbicide tolerant) crop authorised in the EU, so no conclusive answer is possible 

for the time being as regards the use of herbicides. 

o  A  study  of  the  Federal  Environment  Agency  on  environmental  protection  and  nature 
conservation  in  the  cultivation  of  genetically  modified  organisms  by  M.  Dolezel  (2007) 
concludes that negative effects on biodiversity are to be expected. 

o  Effects on the biodiversity of the soil are yet to be examined. 

o  Regions  with  strong  traditions  and  high-quality  production  of  typical  food,  small-scaled 
agriculture,  Natura  2000  zones  are  areas  particularly  worth  being  protected.  In  many  of 
these regions local citizens reject GMOs cultivation. 

o  Current  GMOs  have  not  been  specifically  shaped  for  renewable  resources  (natural 
resources management, energy consumption, climate change, etc), so this question cannot 
even been discussed at theoretical level. 

6 

Costs and benefits of segregation and traceability between GM and non-GM supply chains of final food 
products; Science Centre Straubing (Germany) 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Other implications 

o  No answer

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Belgium1 

1.  ABOUT BELGIUM 

o  The use of GMOs for cultivation is a matter falling under the competence of the Regions. 
o  No  GMO  cultivation2.  One  exception:  in  2010,  a  coexistence  experiment  with  Bt-maize 
(1ha  of  maize  MON810)  was  conducted  to  evaluate  the  Flemish  coexistence  measures 
(legislation and sampling procedures).  

o  Research activities: Dissemination experiments resumed in spring 2009, after a suspension 

between 2004 and 20083. 
o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  BE answer consists in (1) a compilation of the crude contributions of the 12 stakeholders 
involved, including some public services, (2) a report of a workshop organised in Belgium 
on 29 March 2010 on the evaluation of the socio-economic impact of GMOs (available on 
internet5). 

o  This answer of BE to the questionnaire does not represent the official position of Belgium 

as a whole. 

o  In  order  to  properly  assess  the  socio-economic  impact  of  GMO  cultivation,  a  specific 
effort  should  be  devoted  to  the  identification  of  the  scope  of  alternatives  to  such 
agricultural  practice.  A  systemic  approach  could  then  compare  short  and  long-term 
impacts  of  a  GMO  based  agriculture  to  those  of  existing  or  other  potential  innovative 
pathways6.  

o  For  the  federal  Environment  department,  socio-economic  criteria  should  not  bypass 

biosafety criteria. 

o  The  regional  government  of  Wallonia  is  in  favour  of  a  moratorium  on  dissemination  of 
GMOs  into  the  environment  and  putting  on  the  market  as  long  as  absence  of  risk  for 
health and environment as well as socio-economic advantages has not been demonstrated.  

o  The  federal  public  service  Health,  Food  Chain  Safety  and  Environment  organised  a 
workshop  entitled  “Visions  on  the  evaluation  of  the  socio-economic  impact  of  Food 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

6 

This  compilation  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by 
Belgium, and was validated by Belgium. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
http://www.health.belgium.be/eportal/Environment/BiodiversityandGMO/GMOs/ 
19061856_FR?backNode=9222 
Vanloqueren  G.,  Baret  Ph.  (  2009  ):  How  agricultural  research  systems  shape  a  technological  regime 
that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations.  Research Policy 6 : 971-
983 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
GMOs“, organised in Belgium on 29 March 2010. The conclusions of the workshop are 
available at www.ogm-ggo.be 

o  Boerenbond (syndicate of part of Flemish farmers) is open to new GMOs for cultivation 
as  long  as  they  are  thoroughly  evaluated  (science-based),  sustainable  and  socially 
responsible. 

o  The Greenpeace contribution covers GMOs at large, not just cultivation. 

o  For the federal Environment department, sustainability criteria should also be developed 
not only for GMOs intended for cultivation in the EU but also for imported GMOs having 
a direct scope of food/feed/products use. 

3.  Overview of the answers to the questionnaire7 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  For  the  federal  Environment  department  and  the  federal  Development  Cooperation 
department, the question of the patenting of the seeds and the interdiction for farmers to 
re-use  and  exchange  bought  GM  seeds  would  remain  an  important  socio-economical 
issue, to which are linked various other sustainability issues. 

o  For  Greenpeace,  the  more  GMOs  are  cultivated,  the  more  conventional  and  biological 
farmers will have to invest in preventive anti-contaminations means,  as  GM  farmers are 
not responsible for potential cross contaminations with their neighbourhood (principle of 
the "polluted-payer"). 

o  If contaminated by GMOs, biological maize can loose its label and price premium, and in 
the  long  run  its  image  can  be  damaged.  The  2  preceding  considerations  could  force  the 
emigration for ex. of sweet maize EU producers who want to produce without GM, says 
Greenpeace, for which this is paradoxical if the majority of EU consumers are opposed to 
GM food.  

o  Following APFACA-BEMEFA (national professional association of feed producers), if a 
better yield is obtained with GM feed cultures (for ex. Bt maize ), this could be favourable 
for  the  livestock  sector  accepting  GMOs  and  could  raise  the  profits  of  feed  culture 
exporters.  

o  Non-GM livestock farmers have to pay extra costs to guarantee the provision of non GM 
feed  (e.g.  non  GM  Soya  from  Brazil).  Labelling  of  non  GM  fed  livestock  is  therefore 
necessary to justify the premium cost asked to the consumer, who in majority is opposed 
to  GM  food  in  the  EU,  says  Greenpeace,  for  which  it  is  thus  paradoxical  that  these 
consumers have to pay these extra costs. 

o  Greenpeace is opposed to a GM presence tolerance threshold for seeds, as it would lead to 
insidious  large  scale  contamination  of  all  conventional  seeds.  The  Austrian  Seed  Purity 
Act should be considered as a model. 

7 

For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Impacts on downstream operators  

o  SYNAGRA  (national  syndicate  for  cereals  and  dried  fruits  trade)  considers  that  GMOs 
cultivated in Belgium should not be dealt separately in the food chain, in order to avoid 
supplementary costs in infrastructures and workload. Furthermore, even with segregation, 
cross contamination cannot be avoided. 

o  Public authorities (federal Environment department and regional government of Wallonia) 
report  costs  to  be  supported  by  the  public  budget  already  in  the  absence  of  cultivated 
GMOs on the market: cost of risk assessment by the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council: 
costs of controls of labelling of products, cost of post monitoring of field trials, costs of 
control  of  non  contamination  of  conventional  seeds,  costs  of  enquiry  outside  field  trials 
(that revealed presence and maintenance in the environment of Wallonia of  a GM colza 
not  authorized  for  cultivation).  Furthermore,  should  GMOs  be  cultivated,  all  existing 
monitoring  networks  should  be  upgraded  and  this  would  take  time  and  involve  more 
money.  One  should  therefore  anticipate  potential  costs  that  would  result  from  too  lately 
detected negative environmental and/or health impacts. 

o  The Belgian Federation for Food Industry (FEVIA) stresses that for the moment the use of 
GMO  is  limited  as  much  as  possible  due  to  consumer's  rejection.  Should  GMOs  be 
cultivated  in  Belgium,  the  profitability  of  the  sector  would  be  negatively  impacted  by 
increased  logistic,  segregation  and  traceability  costs  along  the  food  production  chain. 
However, should GMOs be accepted by consumers, the range of products proposed to the 
consumers  would  significantly  expand,  agriculture  would  be  more  competitive,  and  the 
food industry more profitable.  

o  For  Greenpeace,  the  contamination  of  bees  and  thereafter  honey  is  unavoidable  when 

GMOs are cultivated close to a hive. 

Economic context 

o  No impact observed on the internal market as there is no cultivation for the moment. 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  For  the  federal  Environment  department,  even  though  some  of  the  problems  raised  by 
GMOs are common to conventional agriculture, the GM technology should do better (and 
not  just  the  same  as)  than  conventional  agriculture,  at  the  level  of  environmental  ( 
including climate ) , health and food security  impacts. This view is shared by the federal 
Development Cooperation department.  

o  For the federal Environment department, GMOs cultivation in its present state causes poor 
preservation  of  wild  and  agricultural  biodiversity  due  to  the  monopole  of  few  big 
companies focusing mainly on a few big world trade cultures, and the cultivation of clonal 
monocultures.  Sustainability  criteria  for  GMOs  cultivation  should  mind  taking  into 
account international environmental and public rights agreements signed by the EU and its 
Member States. This view is shared by the federal Development Cooperation department.  

o  Greenpeace considers that cultivation of BT maize ends up in much higher contamination 
rate of the soil than with conventional practices, due to the continuous production of the 
pesticide  by  the  crop.  Furthermore,  the  benefit  of  the  eradication  of  the  primary  pest  is 
cancelled  by  the  development  of  secondary  pests,  which  then  have  to  be  fought  against 
with  additional  pesticides.  Finally,  the  excessive  use  of  BT  through  BT  crops  could 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
generate resistance, what would be a big problem for the biological farmers also using BT 
insecticides. 

o  Greenpeace  considers  that  HT  crops  stimulate  higher  spraying  of  target  herbicides  by 

farmers, who also have to use additional herbicides when resistant weeds appear. 

Other implications 

o  As regards climate change, Greenpeace considers that there is a full portfolio of measures 
more  efficient  than  the  use  of  GMOs  to  limit  the  CO2  emissions  from  the  agriculture 
sector.  Preserving  plant  diversity,  rather  than  promoting  monoculture  (of  GMOs),  is  the 
best insurance policy to resist to the forthcoming increased drought and extreme climatic 
events. 

o  Boerenbond (syndicate of part of Flemish farmers) considers that ex-ante evaluation of the 
socio-economic  impact  is  not  possible  due  to  the  lack  of  technical  and  economic 
information to build upon and risks to open a process against GMOs without any scientific 
base.  

o  Following  the  federal  Environment  department,  some  socio-economical  impacts  could 
already be evaluated once the destination of the GMO is planned; this assessment could be 
built step by step, being potentially informative from the field trial phase on.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Cyprus1 

1.  ABOUT CYPRUS 

o  No GMO cultivation2. 
o  Research activities on GMOs: no field trial notifications between 2002 and 20073. 
o  No coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

No information 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Countries that cultivate GMOs have increased their use of insecticides but it is difficult to 
assess the risk and gain specific knowledge since in the EU only Spain cultivates GMOs 
commercially and no adequate studies have been published. More research is needed. 

o  Specific  conditions  in  Cyprus:  fragmentation  of  land,  small  size  of  fields  and  small 
distances between them, high endemic flora, special climatic conditions. This implies that 
(1)  buffer  zones  are  probably  not  feasible  in  Cyprus;  (2)  there  is  a  high  risk  of 
contamination  and  implementing  coexistence  measures  will  be  costly  for  farmers.  In 
addition,  coexistence  would  request  more  coordination  between  GM  growers  and  other 
farmers but a majority of farmers don't accept GMO cultivation.  

o  Potential presence of GM seeds in conventional imported seeds implies addition costs of 

inspection.  

o  There is concern regarding the health of the labour resulting from the change in practices 
in the case of GMO cultivation and the use of new chemicals with unknown practices.  

o  The seed  market is  made  of small and medium  enterprises. GM seeds would reduce the 
market share of conventional and organic seeds and thus probably have adverse impact on 
turnover, employment and profit of these small companies.  

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by Cyprus, 
and was validated by Cyprus. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
o  Price  of  GM  seeds  are  controlled  by  multinational  companies  and  can  artificially  be  set 

lower than the price of conventional seeds. 

o  GMOs are not accepted by the majority of the citizens.  

o  Plant genetic resources: conventional seeds must be protected as they will be the base for 

the production of new developed crops.  

o  Domination of GMOs will reduce the choice for farmers. 

o  Incomes  of  the  farmers  who  cultivate  GM  seeds  could  decrease.  Depending  on  the 
weather  or  soil  conditions,  many  times  more  pesticides  or  fertilizers  will  be  needed  for 
GM cultivation, thus increasing the cost. 

o  Patent system will reinforce oligopolies 

Impacts on downstream operators 

o  Citizens have expressed their preference to lower the labelling threshold for food and feed 
and  to  have  GMO-free  products  with  official  labelling.  Labelling  should  be  clearer  and 
GMOs placed on other shelves.  

o  Risk of mixing for food and feed. Segregation will increase the cost of storing, handling, 
transferring and transporting of GMOs for the grain companies and transport companies, 
as well as administrative costs. It is difficult if no impossible to manage the two parallel 
systems, in particular for seeds. In general, quality of products will be questionable.  

o  If  GM  feed  dominate  the  market  and  its  price  drops,  there  is  a  risk  to  reduce  the 

percentage of conventional feed in the market.  

o  As far as insurance is concerned, GMOs need to be handled differently. There is a need to 
provide guidelines so as to be able to deal with GMO companies and cover the cases of 
contamination.  

o  The state  laboratories  perform  analyses for imports.  In  the  case  of  an  increase  of  needs, 
more time will be needed for the results and it is not possible to say how the prices will 
evolve.  There  would  be  an  increased  need  for  more  labs  and  investments  in  new 
technologies.  

o  The research institutes of Cyprus are not involved with GMO research (other priorities are 

set regarding the agricultural sector). 

o  Public  administration:  in  the  event  of  GMO  cultivation,  the  administrative  costs  will 
increase substantially since more monitoring and control will be needed in various sectors 
of the public administration.  

Economic context 

o  It is difficult to evaluate the potential impact on the internal market but negative impacts 
are foreseen regarding the local seed producers, as well as the producers of conventional 
and organic products. 

o  Unequal competitiveness would rise and monopolies would increase.  

o  Fewer  and  larger  farms  will  need  to  be  established  (coexistence)  and  monoculture  will 

increase.  

o  GMO  cultivation  will  possibly  affect  the  good  reputation  of  an  area.  An  additional 
negative agrotourism is to be expected (including due to the decrease of biodiversity). 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
Agronomic sustainability 

o  As there is no cultivation, it is difficult to assess the impact of GMO on use of inputs.  

o  The use of pesticides will probably have a negative impact on other useful insects and on 

the global biodiversity (including fauna and productivity of the soil). 

o  New traits could offer advantages that could lead to the widespread use of only a few crop 
varieties,  meaning  a  loss  of  cultivar  biodiversity  and  a  higher  susceptibility  to  plant 
diseases and pests.  

o  Bees  could  be  impacted  by  the  change  in  their  diet  which  may  have  adverse  effects  on 

their health.  

o  Risk of genetic pollution of wild plants through cross-pollination which may pose public 
health problems; create "superweeds" (requiring more toxic pesticides to be managed) and 
threaten  extinction  for  rare  plant  or  change the  relatives  in  a  way  that  could  make  them 
play a different ecological role, potentially enabling then to out-compete other species.  

o  On biodiversity, there is a possibility for adverse impacts on the biodiversity, depending 
on  specific  conditions.  More  serious  impacts  will  be  observed  in  protected  areas  (e.g. 
Natura  2000).  The  endemic  relatives  need  to  be  examined.  The  decrease  of  insect 
population will limit organisms whose diet depends on insects.  

o  Small-scale agriculture, natural habitats protection and management would be affected.  

o  The  use  of  soil  will  probably  be  affected  (GMO  residues  may  have  an  impact  on 

productivity of the soil) 

o  Cultivation  of  GM  plants  in  order  to  produce  biofuels  will  have  negative  impacts  to 
renewable and non-renewable sources and should not be considered as an alternative.  

o  There is no evidence for specific GM crops that need less water or are tolerant to higher 
temperatures.  Conventional  crops  can  be  selected  for  the  specific  conditions  in  order  to 
adapt to new climatic conditions of the island.  

Other implications 

o  No Answer 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution  
by Czech Republic1

1.  ABOUT CZECH REPUBLIC 

o  Cultivates MON810 Maize since 2005 (approx. 6,480 ha in 2009)2. 
o  Research  activities:  11  notifications  for  field  trials  between  2002  and  20073.  4 

notifications for field trials in 2008 (according to the SNIF database) 

o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  526 stakeholders were consulted, with a 12% answer rate. 

o  The  Czech  Republic  welcomes  the  questionnaire  and  the  discussions  on  the  socio-

economic aspects of cultivation of GMOs. 

o  "The  views  of  the  consultees  are  not  necessarily  the  same  as  the  formal  position  of  the 

Czech Republic's government". 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators 

o  For 78 % of respondents, GMOs had a positive effect on investment in plant research and 
subsequent rising number of patents. 67 % experienced a positive effect of GMOs on the 
employment in the R&D centres. 

o  78 % of respondents experienced that the research on GMOs accelerated the use of non-
GM  modern  breeding  techniques.  Balanced  use  of  GM  and  non-GM  techniques  is 
expected in the future.   

o  Both  GM  and  non-GM  seeds  are  available,  but  GM-seeds  are  more  expensive. 
Dependence from major seed industries was experienced by 74% of responding farmers. 

o  90%  of  responding  MON810  growers  estimated  yield  increase  to  10%  (or  higher, 

depending on pest pressure). 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of information provided by the Czech 
Republic, and was validated by the Czech Republic. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
 
o  77% of responding farmers reported equal or lower production costs, resulting from lower 
(or none) insecticide treatments, lower handling and mechanization. 23% reported higher 
costs due to more costly seeds. 

o  Quality  of  harvest:  all  consultees  cultivating  GM  maize  reported  higher  quality  (less 

mycotoxins). 

o  56% of respondents reported neighbouring conflicts or mentioned threat of such conflicts. 

o  77% of responding GM growers reported difficulties to sell the GM harvest (therefore GM 

harvest is used as a feed in the own farm).  

o  93%  of  responding  farmers  cultivating  MON810  experienced  reductions  in  the  use  of 
insecticides as well as fuel. No change in fertilisers or water resources use was recorded. 
The Czech Beekeeper Union acknowledged the reduction of use of insecticides. 

o  Respondents report significant gains in labour flexibility when pest pressure is high (less 

or no need for chemical treatment).  

o  For  consultees  cultivating  GM  maize,  the  effect  of  GM  crops  on  livestock  is  positive  – 
production  of  plants  with  lower  mycotoxin  content  finally  resulting  in  lower  costs  for 
veterinary care. No opinion on the issue was obtained from organic farmers. 

o  For 72% of consultees, health of labours improves due to reduced exposure to chemicals. 
28%  considered  that  the  difference  is  minimal  when  chemicals  manipulation  rules  are 
respected. 

o  Representatives of organic farming consider that small farms cannot cultivate GM crops 

(isolation distances difficult to keep within and between small farms). 

o  For 53 % of consultees, GM maize cultivation has no impact on the beekeeping industry. 
18  %  of  consultees  and  the  Czech  Beekeepers Union  were  of  the  opinion  that  Bt  maize 
cultivation  would  positively  influence  beekeeping  due  to  reduced  use  of  insecticides. 
However, monitoring of long-term pesticide use development in GM crops is necessary. 

o  The  Czech  Beekeepers  Union  drew  the  attention  to  a  possible  consumers'  reluctance  to 

buy honey products contaminated with GM pollen. 

o  If GM cultivation significantly expands, difficulties to find sufficient cultivation areas for 
conventional seeds are expected, and risk of cross-contamination of non GM seeds during 
growing, harvesting or storage. 

o  Some respondents fear a monopoly development by international seed companies.  

Impacts on downstream operator 

o  Lower level of mycotoxin leads to higher quality products. However, GMO cultivation in 

higher extent could decrease the diversity of non-GM products. 

o  80 % of respondents consider that GM crops cultivation had a positive effect on consumer 
information  and  protection.  Obligation  for  labelling  resulted  in  better  consumers' 
awareness of given products while the right to choice has being kept. 

o  Segregation  GM/non-GM  complicates  organisation  of  work  and  increases  costs  and 
administrative  burden  for  cooperatives  and  grain  handling  companies  (activity  records, 
labelling, controls). 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
o  The food/feed industry, with the exception of the organic industry would benefit from a 
wider range of products offered due to GM. Some producers of organic products claimed 
rise of costs for GM-free products marketing. 

o  Transport companies would face high segregation costs (physical separation, cleaning). 

o  No insurance product for GM growers exists, but it could be developed in the future. 

o  60 % of respondents assumed rise in costs for GMO analyses due to increased demand for 
inspections and enforcement by authorities, extension of personal capacities, development 
and/or of new detection methods provided that areas with GM crops enlarge. 

o  Public  administration:  extra  costs  would  be  faced  by  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  (co-
existence  control  activities  ~  11.500  EUR/year)  and  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment 
(GMO reference laboratories ~ 22.500 EUR in 2009).  

Economic effect 

o  42 % of respondents assumed that placing on the market of GM seeds did not have any 
significant impact on the EU internal market on seeds (partly due to the very limited - and 
decreasing - areas sown with GM maize).   

o  Recent  limited  cultivation  of  GM  crops  in  Europe  does  not  enable  a  strong  business 

competition; therefore an impact on monopolies cannot be quantified.  

Agronomic sustainability 

o  Decrease  in  use  of  pesticides  is  anticipated  by  most  respondents,  as  pest  is  spreading 
quickly  in  new  localities  of  the  Czech  Republic.  Organic  farmers  predicted  increase  in 
pesticides use in case of resistance development. 

o  According  to  77.5  %  of  consultees,  introduction  of  GMOs  does  not  put  at  risk  crop 
varieties as limited to Bt for now. But sound scientific assessment of this potential impact 
if GM crops are more cultivated in future should be carried out. 

o  Protected  species/migration  routes/biodiversity:  for  a  majority,  there  is  no  more  danger 
with  GMOs  than  for  conventional  crops  if  inappropriately  cultivated.  Ca  21  %  of 
consultees considered that there is a lack of data to assess any of the mentioned categories 
for the moment. 

o  Extensive  research  carried  out  in  the  Czech  Republic  on  impact  of  Bt  on  non-target 

organisms demonstrated positive impact on their diversity. 

o  No  negative  impact  is  anticipated  on  renewable  resources.  The  real  problem  lies  in  bad 
farming practice (for both GM and conventional crops). Some consider that GMOs could 
also have a positive impact by increasing production of plants for biofuels. 

o  According to 38 % of consultees, a positive impact on the use of non renewable resources 
is  expected  due  to  less  treatment  i.e.  less  use  of  fossil  fuels  (tractors/production  of 
biocides). But no macro scale impact due to the limited surface of cultivated in the Czech 
Republic. 

o  According to 86 % of consultees GM crops could help fighting against extension of pest 

due to warming. 

Other implications 

o  No answer. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Germany1 

1.  ABOUT GERMANY 

o  Cultivation of MON810 Maize until 2008 (3371 ha in 2008); cultivation of Amflora2. 

o  Research  activities  on  GMOs:  49  field  trials  notified  between  2002  and  2007  (apple; 

barley; maize; oilseed rape; pea; poplar; potato; Solanum nigrum; soybean; wheat)3. 

o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  The  questionnaire  was  sent  to  25  stakeholders  and  to  all  German  Federal  Länders.  20 
responses  were  received  (12  from  official  institutions,  3  from  industry,  and  one  for 
institutions  representing  farmers,  retailers,  consumers,  or  NGOs,  respectively).  Germany 
considers  that  these  20  responses  do  not  allow  answering  properly  to  the  Commission 
Questionnaire.  Therefore  the  German  response  was  kept  general  but  submitting  the 
comments received as additional information. 

o  The  low  experience  with  cultivation  of  GMOs  in  Europe  does  not  allow  a  proper 
evaluation  in  the  European  context  of  intensive  agriculture.  It  should  be  evaluated  if 
conclusions from 3rd countries could be transferred to the European conditions. 

o  The  evaluation  of  socio-economic  consequences  of  the  cultivation  of  GMOs  and  the 

definition of criteria should be carried out separately from the risk assessment.   

o  Documentation  including  socio-economic  criteria  which  could  be  relevant  for  risk 

management decisions should be considered for the formulation of EU criteria. 

o  Socio-economic criteria can be included, in addition to the scientific risk assessments, in 
risk management decisions in the context of a European authorization of GMOs. For this 
the  definition  of  specific  criteria  is  needed,  which  needs  to  be  based  on  a  precise  and 
complete definition of the elements of these criteria.  

o  Socio-economic criteria should consider WTO rules and basic rights of the Lisbon treaty. 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

o  The  responses  were,  in  most  cases  not  covering  all  questions,  so  that  a  summary 
representing different views is not appropriate. 4 answers were "zero" answers, since no 
information was provided. Some of the answers were general and some provided available 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This  compilation  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by 
Germany, and was validated by Germany. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
information or reports for further consideration, covering e.g. non target organisms, risks 
of GMOs, and socio-economic criteria for the evaluation of GMOs. 

o  It  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  compilation  below  is  necessarily  biased  due  to  the 

reduced number of responses and the incomplete feedback to the survey questions. 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Competitive disadvantages in the global market for seed producers (they can not use the 
potential  of  the  technology).  In  particular  SMEs  can  not  invest  in  green  biotechnology 
(high administrative costs for the regulatory processes without a guarantee on the results, 
slow  transfer  of  research  results  into  praxis,  increased  costs  for  research  field  trials 
(security measures), possible destruction of batches in case of micro-contamination. 

o  The  introduction  of  labelling  thresholds  for  conventional  seeds  is  urgently  needed 

(coexistence is only possible with a threshold based on technical possibilities). 

o  Reduced  production  costs  due  to  a  reduction  in  the  use  of  pesticides  (Bt-maize),  more 

secured harvest, better quality of the harvest (reduced presence of mycotoxins). 

o  Higher administrative costs for farmers because of regulatory demands (minimal distance, 

crop rotation, etc.).  

o  The coexistence between GMO growers and non-GMO growers needs to be considered. 

o  The non authorisation of GM plants for feed would give considerable disadvantages to the 

animal production sector (about 50% of the agronomical production in Germany). 

o  Legal  uncertainty  regarding  GMO  residues  in  honey.  Beekeeping  in  general  is  not 

considered in the legal framework. 

o  Patents on GMOs and living organisms not supported by farmer associations nor NGOs.  

o  Farmer advice not to cultivate GMOs because of the negative opinion of consumers. 

Impacts on downstream operators 

o  A threshold for non authorized GMOs in feed is urgently needed for the feed industry. 

o  An impact on costs for grain handling companies is expected (need to separate non-GMO 

and GMO production lines, and respective controls). 

o  An impact on price of goods could be possible but can currently not be predicted.  

o  The current labelling is not fulfilling the principles of transparency and clarity. 

o  It is considered that the consumer has no free choice regarding products produced with / 
without GMOs, since food stuff produced by/with animals fed with GMOs do not need to 
be labelled. This situation is not building confidentiality of the consumers. 

o  There are several cases of GMOs which are exempted from labelling since they are since 

years on the market. These gives an "illusion" of GMO free products.   

o  No free choice is given to the consumer in the case of cultivation of GM plants since once 
they are released into the environment they have the potential to reproduce themselves. 

o  Effects  on  food  producers  are  expected  due  to  asynchronous  authorisation  and  zero 

tolerance of non-authorised GMOs in Europe. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
o  The  cultivation  of  GMOs  should  only  be  allowed  if  the  coexistence  with  conventional 
crops is guaranteed, since otherwise the free choice of the consumer is not guaranteed. 

o  Public administration: important cost increase (implementation/monitoring of cultivation).  

Economic context 

o  An impact on the European internal marked is expected (differences between the Member 
States when transposing the European legislation into national legislation are expected). 

o  In  the  case  of  continuing  with  the  zero-tolerance  concept,  a  reduced  availability  of  feed 
material  is  to  be  expected  in  Europe  (meaning  price  increase  and  competitive 
disadvantage for pork and poultry producers). 

o  GM-free regions would be acceptable if created on the basis of farmers' voluntary choice. 

o  To  avoid  increase  of  price  of  consumer  products  produced  using  GMOs,  GMO  growers 
should contribute to a fond covering the costs of additional administration and labelling. 

o  So far there are no insurance products covering situations caused by GMOs. 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  The  questions  of  this  section  were  not  considered  clear.  Potential  impact  needs  to  be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on the particular GMO.  

o  The  evaluation  of  cultivation  of  GMOs  vs.  conventional  crops  needs  to  be  done 

considering the cultivation systems. 

o  The buffer zones will lead to a concentration of production in some regions (GMO could 
only be efficiently cultivated in areas with a big structure). Small structured regions will 
face a competitive disadvantage. Increased costs are associated with this "buffer zones". 

o  Since tolerance to herbicides or resistance to insects could be achieved also by traditional 
breeding  methods,  a  change  of  agricultural  management  achieved  by  the  use  of  new 
varieties should be evaluated independently of the techniques used. 

o  The non authorization of drought tolerant GM crops would be irresponsible (higher yields 

with the same resources and less CO2 emissions). 

o  The legislation in the areas of GMO and natural protection (Food Fauna Habitat Directive) 

is not sufficiently harmonised.  

Other implications 

o  Independent  and  transparent  research  is  needed,  in  particular  long  term  feeding  studies 

and studies on environmental consequences.   

o  Research should be focused on problem solving and not on methods. 

o  The consideration of socio-economic criteria in the EU authorization process of GMOs is 

not welcomed. This is too "subjective".  

o  For  guaranteeing  free  choice  of  the  consumers,  more  information  should  be  given, 

including on risks and benefits associated with the use of GMO products. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Denmark1

1.  ABOUT DENMARK 

o  No cultivation of GMOs2. 
o  Research activities on GMOs: 8 field trial notifications between 2002 and 20073. 
o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  The  answer  is  based  on  contributions  from  the  Danish  Plant  Directorate,  Danish 
Veterinary  and  Food  Administration  and  the  National  Environmental  Research  Institute. 
Relevant stakeholders have contributed too, and Denmark has decided to let the comments 
from stakeholders stand alone. 

o  Danish Agriculture and Food Council: GM crops have not yet been grown in Denmark. 
The  main  reason  is  the  lack  of  GM  crops  with  events  relevant  for  the  Danish 
agronomic/climatic context. 

o  Danish Agriculture and Food Council: A prerequisite for growing GM crops in Denmark 
is,  however,  that  the  freedom  of  choice  is  guaranteed  for  all  farmers  (GM-growers, 
organic and conventional). 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Greenpeace:  The  USDA  (USA)  states  that  "Currently  available  genetically  engineered 
crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. Yield may even decrease if 
the  varieties  used  to  carry  the  HT  or  insect-resistant  genes  are  not  the  highest  yielding 
cultivars. Similar results are reported from South America. 

o  Greenpeace:  Non-GMO  growers  are  suffering  many  extra  costs  to  prevent  GMO-

contamination. The application of the "polluter pays" principle is reversed. 

o  Danish Seed Council APVD: GM seeds producers may not improve economic output but 

might realize lower input. 

o  Danish  Seed  Council  APVD:  The  farmer  must  have  access  to  seeds  from  several 

companies. 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This  compilation  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by 
Denmark, and was validated by Denmark. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention of accidental entry into the market place – final report November 2008 
Source: idem footnote 2 
more details, please see the full answer at http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
o  Greenpeace: The contamination risk means that, although farm saved seeds are protected 
by  legislation,  farmers  are  in  fact  forced  to  use  certified  seeds  to  reduce  risk  of  a 
contaminated harvest.  

o  Public  institutions:  Possible  impact  on  farmers:  reduction  of  costs  and  increased 

flexibility.  

o  Danish  Agriculture  and  Food  Council:  Dependence  on  seed  industry  and  restrictions  in 
relation to the use of farm saved seeds will probably be of minor importance in Denmark 
as most farmers is buying certified seeds paying a license even for farm saved seeds. 

o  Danish  Beekeepers'  association:  Beekeepers  fear  that  GM  crops  will  make  biodiversity 
even further decrease, monocultures increase and have a negative impact on the vitality of 
honeybee colonies. Beekeeping and honey production is considered to be not adequately 
covered in the "co-existence" legislation (GMO grower is not liable to pay compensation 
in  case  of  damage,  no  protection  for  the  beekeeper  against  non  intentional  presence  of 
GMOs in its products). 

o  Cooperation  of  biodynamic  consumers/agriculturalists:  Growing  more  GM  crops  in 
Denmark and in Europe will put a pressure on third countries which cultivate few or no 
GM  crops,  and/or  third  countries  where  the  farmers,  the  public  and  the  scientists  are 
divided  over  the  cultivation  of  GM  crops.  Such  countries  have  very  weak  public 
institutions  that  are  unlikely  to  be  able  to  securely  measure  and  control  the  use  and 
impacts  of  the  cultivation  of  GM  crops.  Furthermore,  certified  organic  agriculture  will 
probably  become  completely  eradicated,  since  over  time  the  GM  traits  will  spread  by 
natural selection to all non-GM crops. 

o  Danish  Seed  Council  APVD:  It  will  strengthen  competitiveness  of  European  Seed 
Industry.  The  development  of  new  products  is  necessary  to  increase  or  secure 
employment,  turn-over  and  profits.  However,  it  is  predicted  increasing  costs  for  the 
breeding companies in the development of GM crops (insurance issues (legal risks), field 
trials,  costly  risk  assessments.  Access  to  further  plant  breeding  also  with  varieties 
containing  patented  traits  must  be  secured  to  keep  progress  in  breeding  in  the  future, 
respecting breeder's exemption.  

o  Danish  Seed  Council  APVD:  As  regards  seed  production,  identification  of  seed 
production areas with least impact on production of conventional varieties can be an issue.  

o  Danish  Seed  Council  APVD/Danish  Agriculture  and  Food  Council:  Seed  production  (in 
general) with zero tolerance for adventitious presence is impossible and will be a deterrent 
for any GMO production in the EU. 

o  Danish Agriculture and Food Council: Only big companies will have the ability to engage 
in  GM  seed  development.  However,  production  of  organic  or  conventional  seeds  opens 
niches for smaller breeding companies.  

Impacts on downstream operators  

o  Greenpeace: Food industry avoids using GMOs so consumer choice is largely unaffected. 

o  Danish  Agriculture  and  Food  Council:  Grain  handling  companies  are  already  handling 
GM  products  (imported  feed).  However,  the  introduction  of  GM  seeds  will  add  the 
following constraints (coexistence, checking that GM seeds are only sold to farmers that 
have a licence to grow GM crops). Transport companies must prevent spreading and apply 
coexistence  legislation.  They  are,  however,  currently  handling  imported  products 
containing GMOs. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
o  Public institutions: Innovation and research: increasing need for information and trials on 
the potential environmental effects (genetic interactions, synergy on target and non-target 
organisms).  

o  Danish Agriculture and Food Council: Reluctance regarding GM crops has an impact on 
European research, eventually on the number of patents held by European companies and 
also the future access to genetic resources and tools (other modern breeding technologies). 

Economic context 

o  Public institutions: The setting of labelling thresholds for accidental presence of GMO seeds 
in  conventional  seeds  is  not  resolved.  In  practice  the  individual  Member  States  are  setting 
their own thresholds. This situation harms the trade of seed between Member States.  

o  Public institutions: The lengthy approval process and the costs make it difficult for SMEs to 
participate  in  the  development  of  GM  crops  and  this  contributes  to  the  development  of 
monopolies. 

o  Danish Agriculture and Food Council: it is reasonable to have locally adjusted legislations on 

co-existence.  

Agronomic sustainability 

o  Public  institutions:  Experience  from  Spain  seems  to  indicate  that  the  cultivation  of 

MON810 can result in a decrease in the use of insecticides. 

o  Danish  Agriculture  and  Food  Council:  A  large  scale  demonstration  project  showed  that 
farmers  growing  HT  fodder  beet  were  very  keen  on  using  its  properties,  experimenting 
reduced dosage or delayed spraying with herbicides, thus leading to high biodiversity in the 
fields (weeds, insects and birds). 

o  Greenpeace: HT crops increase weed resistance and increase use of more toxic herbicides.  

o  Public institutions: The evaluation of possible effects on biodiversity, fauna and flora should 
be better addressed. Knowledge gaps include: field edge effects, long term effects, landscape 
effects, non-target effects, monitoring programs.  

o  Cooperation  of  biodynamic  consumers/agriculturalists:  Several  already  existing  challenges 
regarding  environment,  climate  and  public  health  will  further  deteriorate.  By  keeping 
GMOs  out,  it  is  believed  that  over  time  the  livestock  production  within  the  EU  will 
diminish due to an expected lack of GM-free fodder. This will have a large-scale positive 
impact  on  climate  mitigation,  water  pollution, water  usage,  biodiversity  and  global  food 
resources. 

o  Public  institutions:  Future  GM-crops  (resistant  to  drought,  temporary  flooding,  saline 
conditions) constitute a possible adaptive capacity to climate change (but will at the same 
time pose a pressure on the biodiversity, flora, fauna, landscape and other environmental 
values).  

o  Greenpeace: GMO cultivation does not solve any problems but creates many more. In the 
context of changing climate, the solution for food security is a multifunctional agriculture 
as outlined by the UN panel on agriculture, IAASTD.  

o  Public  institutions:  Life  cycle  analyses  which  make  the  comparison  between  the  effect  of 
cultivation of GM sugar beet, oilseed rape and maize with the cultivation of the conventional 
versions  of  these  crops  have  shown  that  GMO  cultivation  decreased  emissions  of  CO2  and 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
ozone, ecotoxicity, acidification and nitrification, emissions of toxic particulates and a reduces 
in carcinogenicity. 

Other implications  

o  Greenpeace:  Socio-economic  impact  is  important  in  addition  to  risk  assessment.  The 
Norwegian GMO-legislation provides example of the proper way to include socio-economic 
and sustainability criteria.  

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Estonia1

1.  ABOUT ESTONIA 

o  No GMO cultivation2. 
o  Research activities on GMOs: no field trials but contained use research ongoing3. 
o  No coexistence rules adopted yet4, but planned for adoption in 2011. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  As GMOs are not cultivated most of the answers are speculative. 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on downstream operators  

o  Bt maize contains less mycotoxins, quality would rather increase.  

o  No impact foreseen on the right for farmers to use their own seeds.  

o  Farming practices would change.  

o  Implementation of coexistence measures will cost a lot to farmers 

o  Conflicts  between  GM  growers  and  organic  farmers  or  between  neighbours  can  not  be 

excluded. Organic farming is very viable and popular.  

o  No insurance scheme is foreseen. Compensation of damages is regulated according to the 

Law of Obligation Act.  

o  According  to  coexistence  measures,  training  is  mandatory  for  GM  growers,  paid  by  the 

government and the certificate is valid for 5 years.  

o  An additional notification to beekeepers is required to avoid any possible contamination.  

Impacts on downstream operators  

o  According to a survey among Estonians (2009), 43% of the population would not buy GM 
products, only 2% agree to buy, rest of them are not sure about their preferences. 54% of 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by Estonia, 
and was validated by Estonia. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
 
answered  people  prefer  to  buy  organic  food.  At  the  same  time,  price  of  the  products  is 
generally decisive. 

o  According  to  a  survey  among  Estonians  (2009),  43%  of  answered  people  are  in  the 

opinion that GMOs have to have an additional special label denoted as GMO. 

o  The range or products offered would increase.   

o  Cooperatives  and  grain  handling  companies:  harvests  of  GMOs  and  conventional  crops 

have to be separated, which implies additional costs and workload. 

o  Food  feed  industry:  probably  positive  effect  on  profit  but  additional  costs  and  workload 

(transport, storage separation) 

o  Transport: requirement for cleaning and separate lines.  

o  No insurance scheme is foreseen.  

o  Laboratories:  increasing  number  of  analysis  enhances  the  laboratory  performance  and 

increase profit. Additional workers may be needed.  

o  Innovation  and  research:  possible  impact  on  investment  in  plant  research,  number  of 
patents  held  by  European  organisations,  investment  in  research  in  minor  crops, 
employment in the R&D centres in the EU; use of non-GM modern breeding techniques 
(e.g. identification of molecular markers); access to genetic resources, and expected effect 
on access to new knowledge. 

o  Public  administration:  Several  costs  are  foreseen  (surveillance,  operating  costs  of  GMO 

register etc…) 

Economic context 

o  Possible cross-border investments flows 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  Patterns  of  use  of  chemical  herbicides  would  change  and  the  amount  of  used  herbicides 

may rise as well.  

o  Supposedly  there  is  no  impact  on  the  climate  in  EU.  GMOs  are  not  cultivated  in 

sufficiently large areas to talk about any measurable impact on climate change.  

Other implications 

o  No answer 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Greece1 

1.  ABOUT GREECE 

o  No cultivation of GMOs2.  
o  No research activities on GMOs3. 
o  No coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  Questionnaire has been answered by various stakeholders.  

o  Greece presents a diversity of concerns in case of GM cultivation. The small agricultural 
plots,  the  very  developed  apiculture  as  well  as  the  anxiety  of  all  scale,  from  farmers  to 
consumers are only few of the reasons of this position.  

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Contamination  risks  for  non-GM  crop  farmers,  need  for  extra  controls  of  all  seeds, 
coexistence  cannot  be  controlled  as  the  acreage  in  Greece  is  small,  farmers  will  suffer 
from contaminations causing conflicts among neighbours.  

o  Beekeepers would not be able anymore to produce safe and quality bee products, organic 
and traditional products, products of designations of origin. It is practically impossible to 
apply  coexistence  measures  able  to  protect  bees  from  GM  crops.  The  same  difficulty 
would be raised if field trials were carried out. Need for additional analysis.  

o  Seed production: need for additional measures for seed production, increasing costs.  

o  Use  of  HT  crops  may  result  to  an  increase  in  weed  resistance  to  this  herbicide,  which 
would imply need for bigger quantities of other more toxic herbicides, to which farmers 
will be exposed.  

o  Concerns about biodiversity, dispersion of GM pollen, production of HT weeds, herbicide 

accumulation in HT plants, effects on non-target organisms.  

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by Greece, 
and was validated by Greece. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Impacts on downstream operators  

o  Consumers  are  not  against  new  technologies  in  principle  (if  clear  benefits  can  be 

demonstrated); However, they are against green biotechnology. 

o  Offer of new products. 

o  GM products would have a lower quality and can acquire lower price, while the non-GM 
product  would  present  a  gradually  decreased  diversity  and  will  become  ore  and  more 
expensive. Consumer choice will be significantly limited.  

o  Consumers'  information  on  labelling  is  not  sufficient.  Not  enough  communication  from 

the EU and governments.  

o  The polluter pays principle is reversed.  

o  Seed  companies:  royalty  collection  from  seed  multiplying  companies  and  seed 

distributors.  

o  States revenues from taxation of the added value.  

o  New  employment  and  investment  opportunities  (directly  or  through  collaboration  with 

public research institutes.  

o  Additional  financial  surcharge  in  all  levels  (farming,  transporting,  storing,  processing, 

logistical, control system…) 

o  GMO cultivation does not take into account ethical-philosophical-religious concerns. 

o  The  suitable  and  geographically  appropriately  located  storage  capacity  for  grains  in  the 
country is considered inadequate to allow for coexistence. Grain handling installations do 
not have by design the proper structure to prevent mixing.  

o  Transport: delays and extra cleaning are also expected to add an extra cost but problems 

will remain minimal if procedures are followed.  

o  Feed traders consider that there would be significant benefits but there is a need for extra 

attention.  

o  Laboratories: more people would have to be employed, which would increase the cost of 
the  final  product  (in  the  long  term,  costs  could  go  down  due  to  the  economy  of  scaling 
up).  People  would  need  to  be  skilled  and  specialised.  Time  for  analysis  is  expected  to 
increase.  

o  Public administration: government will have to allocate funds and important resources in 

order to organize, policing, putting enforcement costs and quality control testing.  

Economic context 

o  Risk of mono or oligo-polizing in the seed market. 

o  Could lead progressively to an increase in the size of farms and decrease the number of 

farmers and monoculture.  

Agronomic sustainability 

o  In case of insect resistant plants, possible increase of secondary pests, target insects may 
express  resistance  to  the  compound  produced  by  the  GMO,  GM  plants  may  become 
susceptible to other pests. In all cases, increase of insecticide use will occur.  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
o  In  case  of  HT  crops:  possible  increase  of  selection  pressure  for  resistant  weed  biotypes 

and reinforcement of the use of broad spectrum herbicides. 

o  Possible irreversible adverse effects on biodiversity. 

o  Loss  of  traditional  varieties  and  knowledge.  Reducing  diversity  of  cultivars  may  case 

problems such as higher susceptibility to plant diseases and pests.  

o  If GM plants pass their new traits on to wild relative, it could make these relatives play a 

different ecological role, possibly enabling them to out-compete other species.  

o  Insect resistant GMOs may reduce the number of phytophagous and pollen-feeding insects 

in the field, which could have an impact throughout the food chain.  

o  Peer-reviewed  studies  have  demonstrated  that  the  effect  of  Bt  maize  are  far  from 

predictable.  

o  Competitive  trade  advantage  of  GM  cultures  would  damage  biodiversity  and  result  in 

degradation of bee feeding.  

o  Recent  scientific  work  has  shown 

that 

toxin  Cry1Ab  has  negative  effect  on 

communication, learning capacity of bees and feeding collection capacity.  

o  Possible impact of GM plants on the environment can be summarized as follows: 

–  Transfer of genetic material to sexually compatible plants in the wild; 

–  Expression of pollen-mediated toxicity; 

–  Effects on microbially-mediated biogeochemical cycles and soil biotransformation 

and decomposition processes on ecosystem function; 

–  Increased  persistence 

in 

the  environment 

through 

increased 

survival, 

establishment and invasiveness of GM plants; 

–  Adverse effects on non-target organisms; 

–  Wider biodiversity implications as a consequence of specific agronomic practices 

to manage GM plants; 

–  Changes  in  pesticide  residues  as  a  result  of  changed  crop  protection  practices 

on/or metabolic changes in GM plants. 

o  Bt toxin may affect headwater stream ecosystems.  

Other implications 

o  No answer 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Spain1

1.  ABOUT SPAIN 

o  MON 810 cultivated since 1997 (76,057 ha in 2009)2. 

o  Research activities: 165 field trials notified between 2002 and 2007 (cotton, grape/plum, 

carrizo citrange, maize, potato, rice, soybean, sugar beet, wheat)3. 

o  No coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  Spain welcomes the questionnaire, but considers that the collected data may be of limited 

value as only (Bt) maize is cultivated in Spain (20% of the total cultivated surface). 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Potential for EU research would be significant if GMOs were better accepted in the EU. 
However  R&D  on  GMOs  would  affect  research  on  conventional/minor  crops,  as 
multinational will not invest in this domain spontaneously. Access to technology by SMEs 
will be limited during the patent protection period, but afterwards much material would be 
available  for  research.  For  the  public  administration  and  researchers,  the  current  lack  of 
visibility on the evolution of the European legislation on GMOs and the lack of labelling 
on non GM techniques (e.g. molecular markers) discourages research in this domain. 

o  According  to  the  research  institutions,  for  provinces  infested  by  corn-borers  (Aragon, 
Cataluna), the benefit for the farmer is clear. An ex ante study estimated that, under high 
pest  pressure,  MON810  would  increase  yield  by  11%  (1.500  kg/ha)  (Novillo  et  al., 
2003).Also, another ex ante study under Spanish conditions proved that Bt-cotton would 
save  15,8  l/ha  of  insecticide  and  increase  yield  by  12%  more  than  conventional  cotton 
under 1998 conditions (Novillo et al., 1999). 

o  An  ex  post  survey  measured  that  the  use  of  Bt-maize  seeds  in  Spain  resulted  in  gross 
margin  increases  from  3  to  135  €  per  hect are  depending  on  the  year  and  areas  of 
cultivation (Gómez-Barbero et al, 2008).  

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by Spain, 
and was validated by Spain. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
 
o  The  growing  surface  planted  in  Spain  –from  22.000  ha  in  1998  to  76.000  ha  in  20096– 
after 12 years of local experience is a strong ex post indicator of higher farmer revenues. 

o  Seed prices are higher, but production costs decrease due to less inputs use and workload.  

o  In Spain selling prices of GM and non GM livestock maize are equivalent.  

o  For  environment  protection  associations,  GM  crops  increase  the  production  price  of 
conventional/organic  crops,  and  negatively  impact  their  market  price  when  admixtures 
occur.  Furthermore,  GMOs  do  not  have  market  advantage;  they  are  mainly  used  for 
local/farm.  These  associations  also  maintain  that  GMOs  require  more  chemicals  than 
conventional crops.  

o  In  Spain,  there  are  no  normative  measures  in  place  for  co-existence,  and  according  to 
public  authorities/seed  growers,  with  12  years  of  experience  in  Bt  maizes  no  problems 
have been reported so far thanks to appropriate good farming/co-existence practices.  

o  For environment protection associations, co-existence is of concern as there are no rules 
of  compensations  of  cross  contaminations.  If  co-existence  management  costs  were 
integrated in the cost chain, levels of use of GMOs by farmers would drop. 

o  No  problem  of  availability  of  GM/non  GM  seeds  according  to  public  authorities  and 

innovators. Dependence to the seed industry is similar to conventional/hybrid seeds. 

o  No problem identified so far by the beekeepers. 

o  For public authorities and innovators, Bt maize harvests contain less mycotoxins. 

o  For  public  authorities  and  innovators,  decreased  use  of/exposition  to  insecticides  helps 
improving worker's health. The benefit would be less clear with Herbicide Tolerant (HT) 
crops:  Glyphosate  is  less  toxic  for  users,  but  exposure  to  pesticides  can  remain  high  as 
more herbicides can be used depending of farming practices.  

o  For  public  authorities  and  innovators,  patenting  of  the  crops  and  prohibition  of  plant 
breeder's  right  is  not  perceived  as  an  additional  constraint  or  as  an  additional  risk  on 
availability  of  non  GM  varieties,  compared  to  hybrid  crops.  Furthermore,  the  European 
seed industry will loose competitiveness if it is not more involved in GMOs.  

o  If there is – still or growing – demand for non GM seeds/products, even in local markets, 

seed producers will have an interest in providing such products to the market place. 

o  Since there is no legislation in the EU concerning the presence of GM seeds in batches of 
conventional  varieties,  there  is  disparity  in  the  criteria  and  measures  taken  by  Member 
states; therefore, a 100% GMO free organic farming cannot be guaranteed. 

Impacts on downstream operators 

o  For  the  administration,  GMOs  contribute  to  enlarge  consumers'  choice  (GMOs, 
conventional, organic), decrease prices. Acceptance levels of Spaniards for GM food are 
among  the  highest  of  the  EU  (Eurobarometer  2005:  74%).  However,  consumers  can  be 
misled by the lack of explanation on the fact that GM labels are not risk indications, and 
by "eco activists" campaigns. Better information would help increasing acceptance levels. 

6 

http://www.mapa.es/agricultura/pags/semillas/estadisticas/serie_maizgm98_06.pdf 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
o  Environment protection associations consider that GMOs hinder the freedom of choice of 
consumer  as  labelling  do  not  mention  when  livestock  was  fed  with  GMOs,  there  is  no 
"GMO free" labelling and the legislation ignores long term health effects of GMOs. 

o  Cooperatives  and  food  industry  handling  GM  and  non  GM  crops  will  have  to  cover 
relatively high costs of testing and segregation to guarantee the purity of their stocks. 

o  The prices of the organic products will increase due to the segregation measures and the 

difficulty to access to non GM seeds (ex ante assessment). 

o  Transport  companies  will  have  to  face  higher  costs  of  segregation/cleaning.  The  future 

regulation on Low Level Presence (LLP) should even more increase these costs. 

o  Insurance companies do not propose GM specific products for the moment. 

o  Testing laboratories will perform more analysis with more staff, thus tests will be quicker 

and more efficient. Levels of tolerance threshold can influence the costs of the tests. 

o  For  the  moment,  it  is  likely  that  costs  of  the  controls  required  by  disproportionate  EU 
regulations  may  be  higher  than  the  financial  benefit,  therefore  the  net  overall  financial 
impact for the society is negative. 

Economic context 

o  The divergence between MS on cultivation authorisation or LLP, despite the community 
authorisations, affects the internal market for goods. No identified impact on services. 

o  The  high  regulatory  costs  have  left  the  GM  traits  market  in  the  hands  of  few 
multinationals  (for  business,  but  also  R&D  capacity  reasons),  which  could  lead  to 
oligopoly in the seed supply if the GM traits were not shared with other companies, i.e. 
hindering the internal market. 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  The use of Bt maize in Spain resulted in a reduction of 0,54 insecticide applications per ha 

(Gomez Barbero et all, 2008). 

o  For the public administration, use of HT crops based on a single herbicide without proper 
stewardship could end-up in increase of herbicides use when weed resistance develops. 

o  For  the  public  administration  and  the  research  institutions,  no  environmental  impact 
should be expected since an assessment is performed at EU level. The 8 year experience 
of Spain with MON 810 shows that there is no risk. HT crops can have a positive impact 
when  cultivated  according  to  good  farming  practice.  The  impact  of  cultivation  of  GM 
crops  should  be  put  into  the  perspective  of  the  modern  cultivation  practices,  which  can 
have harmful effects on the environment/biodiversity.  

o  For  innovators  and  public  administration,  the  impact  of  GMOs  on  renewable/non 
renewable  resources  should  be  positive  as  plants  will  need  less  water/rotations  to  reach 
similar yields than conventional plants. Furthermore, less needs in insecticides/herbicides 
means less production, transport and recycling of these agro-chemicals. 

o  Climate change: new GM traits could be more adapted to drier climate conditions. 

o  CO2 emissions: benefit expected due to reduced transport and applications of pesticides, 

and simplified tillage operations. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
o  Recent studies for indicate that if EU farmers could use GM maize, cotton, soya oilseed 
rape and sugar beet varieties successfully used elsewhere, farmer margins would increase 
by  between  €443  and  €929  million  /year  (Park,  J
.,  McFarlane,  I.,  Phipps,  R.  and  G. 
Ceddia, 2011. New Biotechnology). 

o  Plant  biotechnology  has  an  important  role  to  play  in  helping  to  achieve  the  Millennium 

Development Goals (Yuan et al., 2011. Plant Cell Rep, 30: 249-265). 

Other implications 

o  The  balance  of  socio-economic  implications  may  not  be  homogeneous  for  the  different 
GMOs, for each GMO across the EU, or even within a Member State. It should be up to 
the  individual  farmers  to  decide  case  by  case  the  convenience  to  choose  among  those 
GMOs with a positive Opinion on its cultivation by EFSA and Member State Authorities. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Finland1 

1.  ABOUT FINLAND 

o  No cultivation of GMOs2. 
o  Research activities on GMOs: 2 field trial notifications between 2002 and 20073. 
o  No coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  The  Finnish  contribution  is  a  compilation  of  answers  received  from  the  following 
stakeholders:  MTT  Agrifood  Research  Finland;  Finnish  union  of  organic  farming 
(FUOF);  Finnish  beekeepers  association;  Finnish  Food  and  Drink  Industry  Federation 
(FFDIF); Professor in Microbiology/University of Helsinki; Finnish Environment Institute 
(FEI),  the  Finnish  Consumer's  Association  (FCA),  the  Seed  Traders  Association  (STA), 
Finnish  Forest  Research  Institute  (FFRI),  the  Sugar  Beet  Research  Centre  Finland  and 
professors of agro-ecology and plant breeding of the University of Helsinki. 

o  Answering  to  the  questions  considered  challenging  (only  ex  ante  assumptions).  The 
authorities asked the respondents to assess the potential impact of the first probable GM 
crops in Finland, i.e. potato and sugar beet. 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Co-existence issues in the field of potatoes are minimal.  

o  Preventing the unintended spread of pollen and seed of GM plants is impossible. Possible 
contamination  worries  organic  beekeepers.  The  legislation  must  ensure  that  the 
preconditions continue to exist for organic production. Beekeepers must have free access 
to information of places where GM-plants are grown.  

o  Conflicts with neighbouring farmers or other neighbours may arise. 

o  Bees' health and quality of honey can be affected by low nutritional value of GM pollen. 

o  Bees could go on non-food GM plants and pollen could be found in honey. All GM plants 

entering the market should be accepted for as human food.  

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by Finland, 
and was validated by Finland. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
o  The competitive advantage of Finnish agriculture rests with GMO-free products.  

o  Cultivation of GM potatoes may concentrate production further. However, GM production 
may support the visibility of organic farming (status of an alternative mode of production) 

o  Plant breeders: new traits via GM in existing varieties may boost the use of certified seeds 
and  breeding  of  new  varieties.  But  limited  access  of  conventional  breeding  companies 
may lead to a concentration of the business.  

o  GM cultivation could lead to narrow the range of varieties under cultivation.  

o  Additional challenge: to have enough farmers and acreage for seed production as a whole.  

o  Only  a  few  plant-breeding  organizations  have  had  capacity  to  develop  GM  crops. 
Patenting  has  strengthened  this  trend.  Revision  of  the  criteria  of  patentability  should  be 
considered for broadening of the genetic base of crop varieties under cultivation.  

o  Biotechnology  has  made  possible  deeper  analysis  of  plant  genetic  resources  and  their 

improved use for plant breeding.  

o  Investments  in  plant  production  research  are  likely  to  be  increased.  Focus  should  be  on 

integrated approached to plant protection, funded by public funds. 

o  The availability of genetic resources for breeding is a prerequisite for Finland for all kind 
of breeding because it is not possible to use varieties used in other regions. Private seed 
companies may not develop appropriate varieties for Finland. Public research is necessary. 

Impacts on downstream operators  

o  Impact on consumer choice if better quality and larger diversity of products. Consumers 
must have a chance to make an informed choice. Consumers need to get a clear benefit. 

o  Link between price, GM-characteristic of goods and propensity of consumers to buy them 

is not clear.  

o  Cooperatives, grain handling companies, transport companies: handling, storage, logistics 

can be a problem.  

o  Insurance  companies:  the  fact  that  no  insurance  in  the  world  has  developed  services  for 

GM farmers shows that the risk is too high and fully unknown. 

o  Laboratories: controls will increase, thus unit price of analysis will decrease and quality of 

tests will increase. 

o  Public  administration:  need  for  national  enforcement  policy,  new  guidelines,  additional 

labours and other implementation costs. 

Economic context 

o  Decrease in autonomy of farmers may be a concern but should not over-estimated. 

o  Possible cross-border investments flows.  

o  If the requirements call for rotation, the farm's business becomes non-profitable.  

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
Agronomic sustainability 

o  GM potato has potential to decrease the use of fungicides but risk of resistance is possible 

over time. 

o  There is an interest in the GM potato to reduce the production costs of seeds (losses due to 

viruses and mycosis are very high). 

o  There is a possibility to reduce the use of herbicides when cultivating HT sugar beet but 

the cultivation of HT rapeseed may increase the amount of herbicide used.  

o  2  HT  beets  were  tested6  and  demonstrate  an  economic  benefit  in  using  the  HT  version. 
The risks and benefits of the GM varieties could be considered. Benefits would be: more 
reliable  and  flexible  weed  control,  use  of  glyphosate  (considered  to  be  a  low  risk 
herbicide),  reduced  use  of  tractor  (less  fuel  use  and  soil  compaction).  Risks  would  be: 
disappearance of other herbicides from the market, accelerated appearance of HT weeds, 
HT gene moving to weedy relatives and causing a more problematic weed development, 
increase of the use of total mount of herbicides 

o  GMO sugar beet and other GM crops are valuable steps. It would be extremely important 

to make good evaluations for minimizing the environmental risk. 

o  HT  sugarbeet  would  diminish  the  quantity  of  weeds,  which  are  important  for  bees, 

butterflies, and used as feed by many birds. 

o  Impact of herbicides on ground waters. 

o  Crossbreeding between the GM potato and wild relatives is impossible. 

o  When  cultivating  HT  crops,  less  biomass  is  produced  which  affects  the  biogeochemical 

cycle of soils. 

o  Cultivation  of  transgenic  potatoes  may  hinder/complicate  crop  rotation  and  increase  the 

demand for fertilisers produced with non-renewable resources.   

o  The efficiency of the use of field and forest biomass can be improved by plant breeding 
based on new genetic know-how and by boosting the efficiency of production processes. 
Agricultural  production  requires  prevention  of  the  environmental  impacts  of  modern 
agricultural  practices.  GM  crops  have  shown  efficiency  in  the  reduction  of  chemical 
loading and erosion of agricultural environments. Crop yields can also be improved.  

o  Warming  may  allow  to  cultivate  rapeseed  more  northwards  but  could  also  increase 

variability of viruses. 

o  New 'more adapted varieties should be developed. GM techniques are likely to speed up 

selection programs.  

o  Organic  agriculture  would  help  improving  the  state  of  the  Baltic  sea.  If  GMOs  are 

expanded, this potential will be lost. 

o  Transportation  of  GMOs  is  a  risk  for  uncontrolled  spreading  and  admixture.  Very  strict 

transport conditions are therefore necessary. 

Other implications 

o  No answer. 

6 

1998-2000 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by France1 

1.  ABOUT FRANCE 

o  Cultivation of Bt maize until 20072. 
o  Research activities on GMOs: 75 field trial notifications between 2002 and 20073. 
o  Coexistence legislative framework adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  The  French  contribution  consists 

the  High  Council  of 
its  scientific  committee  and  a 
Biotechnologies,  consisting  of  an  opinion  of 
recommendation  of  its  economic,  ethical  and  social  committee,  (2)  contributions  by 
scientists  from  the  National  Institute  of  Research  in  Agronomy  (INRA)  and  (3) 
contributions from 43 stakeholders. 

in  (1)  an  opinion  of 

o  The format and methodology of the questionnaire was challenged by several respondents. 

o  The  High  Council  for  Biotechnologies  made  suggestions  on  the  methodology  and 
procedures  to  consider  socio-economic  factors  in  the  process  of  evaluation  and 
authorisation of GMOs.  

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Seeds  producers  and  growers  stress  that  GMOs  are  effective  tools  for  farmers  to  better 
manage  pest  pressure  and  prepare  to  the  forthcoming  climate  changes.  If  properly 
regulated, co-existence should not be problematic. 

o  For environmental associations and organic producers, co-existence is inefficient in most 
of  regions,  thus  non-GM  farmers  have  to  set  self-protection  measures  that  impact 
negatively their production cost. Furthermore, the commercial value of their products can 
be devaluated in case of adventitious presence of GMOs. 

o  Environmental  associations  and  organic  producer  stress  that  apiculture  is  at  heart  of  the 
problem. Honey can contain GM pollen (with negative impact on the marketability of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by France, 
and was validated by France. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
products  and  by-products)  and  bees  can  be  vectors  of  diffusion  of  GM  pollen  into  non-
GM crop fields.  

o  Environmental  associations  and  organic  producer  consider  that  GMOs  increase  the 
dependence  of  farmers  toward  seed/agrochemical  companies,  and  make  impossible  the 
practice  of  farm-saved  seeds.  However,  conventional  maize  producers  stress  that  GM 
crops growers are not more dependant than those cultivating conventional hybrids. Such 
dependence  is  the  consequence  of  the  political  decisions  taken  at  European  and 
international levels. 

o  Insurance  companies  do  not  propose  insurance  schemes  for  adventitious  presence  of 

GMOs in non-GM harvests.  

o  For  seed  producers,  when  pest  pressure  is  significant,  farmers  can  increase  revenues  by 
using  Bt  crops  (less  field  work/spreading,  higher  yields,  better  quality  of  the  harvest). 
However conventional and organic farmers stress that the increasing price of GM seeds, 
associated  to  lower  yields  than  announced  by  producers,  can  counterbalance  these 
advantages. Furthermore, they consider that monoculture practice in Europe is the initial 
problem: with more annual rotations of cultures, pest pressure would be much lesser, thus 
conventional crops would remain efficient. 

o  In areas with GMOs, shared agricultural material will be more expensive or less available 

for all farmers, due to the higher cost and length of cleanings. 

o  As regards the cost of co-existence in general, reference is made to the study Coex1 by the 
Joint  Research  Center.  Organic  farmers  and  environmental  association  consider  that  all 
co-existence costs should be covered by the GMO growers ("polluter pays principle"). 

o  Seed producers and the association of maize growers underline that, when pest pressure is 
high,  Bt  maize  harvest  contain  significantly  less  mycotoxin  than  conventional  maize. 
However, small and organic farmers stress that, even if the former is true, the mycotoxin 
rates in conventional crops remain much lower than European norms. 

o  Farmers  feeding  livestock  with  GMOs  have  never  experienced  animal  health  problems 
over the last ten years. They call for a better management of asynchronous authorisations 
of GMOs worldwide, to improve feed supply. Non-GM breeders highlight the difficulty to 
ensure  proper  GM-free  feed  supply  as  well,  and  the  extra  costs  of  the  segregation 
measures, which cannot be valued unless a proper labelling exists. 

o  The  seed  industry  declares  that  they  will  keep  developing  seeds  for  all  markets,  i.e. 
conventional, GM and organic. France being the second exporter of seeds worldwide, GM 
seeds should be grown locally, what would be possible if the maximum acceptable levels 
of adventitious presence of GMOs in conventional seeds are not too low. 

o  Farmers and environmental associations fear the development of patent protected events, 
which  will  increase  legal  uncertainty  for  farmers,  who  will  have  difficulties  to  know 
whether varieties they use are protected or not.  

o  Seed  producers  consider  that  farmers  and  downstream  operators  are  already  well 
acquainted  with  the  management/segregation  of  separate  varieties  along  the  food  chain. 
Inclusion of GMOs should not be a major issue if adventitious presence thresholds are not 
too low. However, COOP de France underlines that the stricter thresholds for GMOs are 
more  challenging.  Environment/organic  associations  consider  that  such  segregation  will 
generate  unbearable  extra-costs  for  the  non-GM  food  chains  and  for  consumers  of  non-
GM food.  

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
o  Seed  producers  and  maize  growers  regret  that  France  lost  all  its  R&D  expertise  (public 
and private) on GMOs in the last ten years (c.f. destruction of experimental cultivations). 
Consequently,  young  researchers  are  not  attracted  by  biotechnologies,  and  France  fully 
depends from innovations developed abroad. 

Impacts on downstream operators 

o  Consumers,  environment  protection  and  conventional/organic  producers  associations 
claim that consumers do not see any added value in GM food. 72% of French consumers 
think  it  is  important  to  be  able  to  consume  GM  free  food.  60%  of  French  consumers 
consider that France should better develop its conventional agriculture rather than GMOs. 
(source: sondage CSA/Greenpeace of 30-31 January 2008) 

o  Clear labelling of food is important (GM food stuff and meat/milk from animals fed with 
GMOs).  For  71%  of  French  consumers,  "GM  free"  must  mean  0%  of  GMOs,  and  not 
0.9%). (source: idem above) 

o  The increased cultivation of GMOs will have a qualitative and quantitative impact on the 

activity of testing laboratories. 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  A  micro-economic  inquiry  performed  in  2008  in  8  farms  by  AGPM  concluded  that 
MON810 allows reducing the use of insecticides. Saving for farmers can be up to 93€/ha, 
depending of the number of applications. 

o  Environment and organic association contest the agronomic sustainability of GMOs over 
time, even if results could be positive in the first years. Furthermore, GMOs are associated 
to  the  intensive  monoculture  model,  which  agronomic  sustainability  is  negative 
(fertilizers, over consumption of water). 

o  Seed producers consider that HT and Bt users can help limiting the use of renewable and 
non renewable resources (less tillage and spreading), and sequestration of greenhouse gas. 
Environment and organic associations consider that same or better results can be achieved 
thought improved cultivation practice of conventional crops. 

Other implications 

o  Several  respondents  underline  the  need  to  address  rapidly  the  challenge  of  world  food 
crisis in the next 40 years. Increase of yields and more sustainable agriculture practices are 
quoted  among  the  cornerstones  to  consider,  though  with  diverging  opinions  on  the 
potential role to be played by GMOs in this context. 

o  Several respondents consider that the questionnaire should have taken into account wider 
problematics, such as self-sufficiency in food or agricultural policy of the Member States 
and the European Union. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Hungary1 

1.  ABOUT HUNGARY 

o  No cultivation of GMOs2. 
o  Research activities on GMOs: 26 field trial notifications between 2002 and 20073. 
o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  Only  estimations  of  ex  ante  impacts  are  in  the  report,  which  are  considered  highly 
dependent of regional/national characteristics of where the GM cultivation takes place. 

o  Hungary considers that a new system of evaluation should be set up, inspired by Norway, 
where  the  impact  assessment  of  a  GM  release  should  consider  health,  environment, 
benefit  to  society  (in  both  the  producing  and  the  receiving  countries)  and  promotion  of 
sustainable development. 

o  The contribution contains two studies: 

-  Economical  impact  of  the  introduction  of  GMOs  into  the  Hungarian  Agriculture 

(György Pataki, Réka Matolay); 

-  Norwegian assessment guide: Sustainability, Benefit to the Community and Ethics 
in  the  Assessment  of  Genetically  Modified  Organisms:  Implementation  of  the 
Concepts  set  out  in  Sections  1  and  10  of  the  Norwegian  Gene  Technology  Act 
(The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board). 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Surveys of farmers show negative opinion about the benefits of using GMOs. 

o  Cross-contaminations  are  unavoidable  (cf  international  practices).  Extra  costs  due  to 
laboratory  test  for  GMO  contamination  will  increase  production  costs  and  tensions 
between farmers. 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This  compilation  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by 
Hungary, and was validated by Hungary. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
o  Experience in Spain shows that organic agriculture has drastically decreased in regions of 
GMO  cultivation.  Biotech  products  do  not  have  added  value  for  consumers  therefore 
support  to  organic  agriculture  seems  to  be  more  economically  rational  in  terms  of 
agricultural policy. 

o  Yields are not improved, according to international studies (including USDA 2006). 

o  International experience with GMOs shows advantageous effects for large scale farmers. 
However,  increase  of  profitability  cannot  be  unequivocally  established  or  proved.  The 
decrease  of  use  of  pest/weed  control  materials  tend  to  reverse  after  3  years  (due  to 
resistances), impacting the margin of the farmer's cost. 

o  Hungary is the second maize producer in Europe (food, feed and sowing seed), with 2/3 of 

its export. They get high premiums on the market due to their GMO free status.  

o  Use of GMO can lead to less labour needs. The local populations should be maintained by 

agriculture. The Hungarian family based model of agriculture should be preserved. 

o  Seed  producers  will  have  to  set  up  segregation  systems.  Hungary  wants  to  preserve  its 

capacity to produce GM-free seeds (clear market advantage on the export market). 

o  GM  seeds  are  more  expensive  and  lead  to  loss  of  the  farmer's  privileges  (re-plant, 

exchange of seeds), thus loss of incomes. 

o  Organic/conventional  farmers  will  have  to  set  up  co-existence  measures  and  perform 

purity tests.  

o  Co-existence implies establishing buffer zones. This is not possible in Hungary due to the 

land ownership characteristics: small plots, prominence of numerous small families. 

o  If adventitious presence is beyond 0,9%, prices of conventional/organic goods will drop. 
GMOs can decrease the profitability of farmers and industry using non GM materials. 

o  There is a need for a study on the impact of GMO cultivation on farmers' revenues, based 

exclusively on European data or estimations. 

o  Beekeepers are firmly opposed to GMOs as coexistence is inefficient (bees fly up to 6 km 
away).Furthermore,  according  to  a  Hungarian  study  (Békési,  2006)  adverse  effects  have 
been  shown  on  the  chance  of  the  larvae’s  survival  and  the  adult  bees’  resistance  to  the 
Nosema apis microsporidian parasite. 

o  If large scale GMO cultivation is introduced, demand for conventional/organic seeds will 
decrease.  Production  of  such  seeds  will  also  be  more  difficult  (available  land,  buffer 
zones,  etc),  more  costly  and  risky  (marketing  price  in  case  of  adventitious  presence). 
Overall,  loss  of  profitability  of  the  whole  conventional/organic  sector,  leading  to  its 
vanishing.  Local  and  traditional  varieties  may  disappear  which  also  means  that  without 
customs the domestic plant breeding institutes will have difficulties to survive. 

o  The  whole  seed  business  would  be  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  very  few  multinational 

seed companies. Hungary considers this as an "internal safety issue for the EU". 

Impacts on downstream operators  

o  The  majority  of  the  consumers  both  in  Europe  and  in  Hungary,  is  not  in  favour  of  GM 

based foods.  

o  Cost  of  co-existence  will  impact  marketing  price  and  the  profitability  of  the  non  GM 

sector. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
o  Cooperatives,  grain  handling  companies:  Co-existence  will 

increase  cost  of 

handling/transport. It will be more difficult to produce GM free products. 

o  Transport companies: Segregation will make the process more complex and slower. 

o  GM promotes the model of integrated, monopolistic production and marketing. 

o  Insurance companies consider this field too risky, no products have been developed so far. 

o  Profits  of  laboratories  will  increase  but  they  will  face  difficulties  with  stacked  event 

GMOs.  

o  Independent  research  on  risks  is  being  hampered  by  obstructive  behaviours  of  the 

industry, and difficulties to access research material due to patents. 

o  Public administration: management of co-existence measures and post market monitoring 
will increase costs for the administration (more expert knowledge and staff in controlling 
authorities). If contamination occurs, it generates extra costs due to national compensation 
found, or increased cases taken to Court. 

Economic context 

o  Free movement of  conventional/organic  seed/food/feed will  be hampered. This will  also 

infringe the free choice of farmers, operators and end consumers. 

o  When assessing the impacts of the placing on the market of GMO seeds on  the internal 
EU  market,  its  implications  on  national  economies  of  particular  Member  States  – 
especially which are the significant producers in the affected sector – including Hungary 
should also be taken into account. 

o  Dependence  of  the  EU  market  from  few  non  European  multinational  has  a  negative 

impact on the European economy. 

o  In a context of export markets not accepting GM maizes, regions cultivating these crops 
suffer  a  decrease  in  the  income  of  farmers  and  other  economic  actors.  This  leads  to 
decrease  in  market  shares  and  to  a  rise  in  production  costs  (segregation  and  identity 
preservation). 

o  Hungarian regions are not affected by the corn borer (so they have no interest in MON810 
or similar Bt maize). Corn borer is not a significant pest, which only appears once in every 
ten  years  in  the  southern  part  of  the  country.  Even  in  this  case,  maize  can  be  protected 
against the pest by using traditional agricultural techniques. 

o  GM  production  requires  intensive  farming  model.  This  deepens  the  dependence  on  high 
energy and resource use, leads to rising climate emissions, and concentrates the lands in 
fewer hands.  

o  GM production models require less workers (increase of unemployment).  

o  There  is  a  high  risk  put  on  the  regional  biodiversity  in  Hungary,  which  is  an  important 

economic driver (number of GMO free regions is constantly rising in Hungary). 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  No local experience, but international data demonstrates that GMOs lead to higher use of 

weed/pest control inputs. 

o  Introduction of GMOs endangers the agricultural and natural ecosystem. Hungary is one 
of the zones with high biodiversity in Europe, therefore does not accept to take any risk 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
where consequences cannot be anticipated beforehand. It is well known that the European 
Union gained a significant environmental contribution with the accession of Hungary. A 
price can basically not be put on the economic value of this asset, although it also appears 
in several sectors besides agriculture (for example, tourism). 

o  Several  research  publications  showed  that  the  MON810  GM  maize  could  cause 
remarkable damages in the population of Peacock butterfly which is protected in Hungary. 

o  Extensive cultivation of uniform, high yielding crop varieties can cause the replacement 

and loss of traditional crop varieties. 

o  GMOs cultivated intensively are dependent on high energy and resources use. Therefore 
GM  cannot  be  considered  as  a  sustainable  farming  method.  Furthermore,  intensive 
agriculture affects the quality of soils, water and groundwater. Moreover, additional CO2 
gas emission can come from using crop protection products and/or artificial fertilizers, or 
tillage. 

o  Emerging  of  weeds  tolerant  to  herbicides  leads  to  more  herbicides  use  (glyphosate  and 

older chemicals). 

Other implications 

o  No answer 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Ireland1 

1.  ABOUT IRELAND 

o  No cultivation of GMOs2. 
o  Research activities: 1 notification between 2002 and 2007 (potato)3. 
o  No coexistence rules4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  The  Irish  policy  is  based  on  the  objective  in  the  Renewed  Programme  for  Government 
(October 2009) to declare the Republic of Ireland free from the cultivation of GM plants. 

o  Ireland  would  favour  modification  of  the  regulatory  framework  to  allow  Member  States 
greater  autonomy  in  decision-making  on  the  cultivation  of  GM  crops  and  the 
strengthening of environmental risk assessment procedures.  

o  A  significant  artisan  food  sector  has  emerged  in  recent  years,  in  response  to  strong 

consumer demand for locally produced, hand-crafted food products.5  

o  The  Irish  contribution  summarises  the  53  comments  received  by  the  Department  of  the 
Environment,  Heritage  and  Local  Government.  The  submissions  can  be  categorized  as 
follows:  academic  R&D;  agribusiness  R&D;  beekeeper;  consumer;  farmer;  organic 
farmer; Government agency; industry representatives and interest groups/NGOs.  

o  The contributions indicate a predominantly negative attitude to GMOs among the public. 
A  number  of  respondents  felt  that  Ireland  would  benefit  economically  and  socially  by 
maintaining a GM free position and by marketing agricultural produce accordingly. 

o  The  Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)  suggested  that  EU  Member  States  should 
include an assessment of socio-economic implications prior to a decision on GM crop for 
cultivation, as is the case in Norway.  

o  IGFA considers that it should be left to the normal working of the market to recognise and 

translate the socio-economic factors through supply and demand. 

o  The  lack  of  inclusion  of  a  stand-alone  “human  health”  category  was  queried  by  several 
respondents,  indicating  a  wish  to  see  separate  processes  in  terms  of  environmental  risk 
assessment and health risk assessment, as part of the authorisation process. 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by Ireland, 
and was validated by Ireland. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
Food Harvest 2020: A Vision for Irish Agri-food and Fisheries, http://www.agriculture.ie/ 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

6 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  According  to  a  study  carried  out  by  Teagasc7,  late  blight  potato  is  a  major  problem  in 
Ireland (annual losses estimated at 15 million€  per annum). Currently, under Irish climatic 
conditions,  in  order  to  protect  the  potato  crop,  this  pathogen  requires  as  many  as  14 
fungicide  applications  during  the  planting  season  to  ensure  adequate  protection.  Net 
benefit to the grower using blight resistant GM potatoes has been estimated to be above 
198€/ha. 

o  The study carried out by Teagasc also concluded that there might be a positive economic 

impact with little social impact if certain GM crops were cultivated by Irish farmers. 

o  Multiple  respondents  on  behalf  of  farmers  and  the  farming  sector  felt  the  current  GMO 
model  is  of  benefit  primarily  to  very  large-scale  mono-culture  type  production  and  that 
this was not a model of production which would prove suitable for the Irish market. 

o  Most  farmers  and  farmer  representative  groups  are  opposed  to  GM  crops  and  feel  that 
their  business  would  be  negatively  impacted  by  GM  cultivation.  Respondents  feel  that 
GM-free  status  offered  far  more  economic  potential  and  would  allow  Irish  farmers  to 
access  higher  value  markets.  However  some  tillage  farmers  respondents  feel  limited  by 
the current GMO policy while having to compete against imported GM products. 

o  According  to  the  Irish  Cattle  and  Sheep  Farmers  Association’s,  GM  seeds  are  more 

expensive (Source: DG Agri, 2000). 

o  Organic farmers feel their business would be negatively impacted (coexistence, additional 

costs, damage to Ireland's organic strategy, lack of availability of GM-free feed. 

o  Beekeepers feel that consumer perception of Irish honey would be severely damaged if the 
end  product  was  perceived  to  be  GMO  contaminated.  Respondents  query  the  legal 
protection  available  to  beekeepers  to  protect  against  financial  loss  due  to  the  reduced 
marketability  of  their  product  or  for  the  establishment  of  beehives  in  GMO  cultivation 
areas. 

o  Conventional and organic seeds: additional measures would be required to protect against 
GMO  contamination  and  there  would  be  increasing  costs  associated  with  the  protection 
and certification of genetic purity of seed lines.  

o  The Agricultural Science Association noted that the glyphosate resistance of GMO crops 
increases  the  flexibility  of  timing  and  reduces  the  number  of  applications  required.  This 
could allow for increased labour flexibility. 

o  Cost  of  coexistence  is  difficult  to  quantify  due  to  the  lack  of  experience.  Comments 
received  suggest  that  it  would  seem  appropriate  that  GM  cultivators  would  bear 
responsibility for the cost of any co-existence measures. 

6 

7 

For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 
Flannery, M. et al, An Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis of GM Crop Cultivation: An Irish Case Study, 
AgBioForum, 2004, Vol. 7, No. 4, p. 149-157  
http://www.gmoinfo.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
o  When  considering  social  aspects,  most  farmers  focused  on  the  problem  of  cross-
contamination.  ICSA  in  particular  underlined  that  agricultural  land  use  of  Ireland  and 
farming practices are not conducive with coexistence due to the interconnections of Irish 
agricultural systems. This could thus result in disputes between neighbouring farmers. 

o  The Agricultural Science Association believes that the issue of farmer training is critical 
in  preventing  widespread  disharmony  and  is  highlighted  in  the  Irish  coexistence 
guidelines.  Training would be required for producers and also for their neighbours. 

o  The ICSA consider that, from a farmer’s point of view, the implications of seed patenting 

is disturbing. The right to produce your own seed must not be undermined.  

Impacts on downstream operators 

o  Several NGOs and consumer respondents argued that an increase in GM crops would have 

a negative impact on consumer choice, especially if coexistence is impossible.  

o  Where non-GM sources of soya and maize (used as animal feed) carry a significant price 
premium (Benbrook, 2009) this could mean that production of Irish livestock products is 
at a disadvantage relative to international competitors. 

o  The Irish Grain and Feed Association considers that all stakeholders in the feed/food chain 

must have equal access to the best available scientific technology.  

o  Public  administration:  checking  compliance  with  legal  regulations  and  additional 

administrative requirements will incur significant administrative expenditure.  

Economic context 

o  The Irish Grain and Feed Association feels that the EU system favours the large players 
due to increased cost and complexity. This has discriminated against smaller indigenous 
players and fostered market dominance by the largest private seed companies.  

o  The  Irish  Grain  and  Feed  Association  considers  that  intellectual  property  rights  are  a 
corner stone of the EU competitiveness agenda and apply to all agricultural stakeholders.  

Agronomic sustainability 

o  This question cannot be answered conclusively based on Irish data (no GMO cultivation). 

o  According  to  IGFA,  it  is  the  informed  application  of  the  correct  agronomic  practice  for 
different conditions that deliver sustainability. No single technology can deliver alone.  

o  Farmers could use fewer chemicals (Spanish experience). The ongoing revision of the EU 
Plant  Protection  Products  (PPP)  legislation  seeks  at  reducing  PPP  application  rates.  The 
use of blight resistant potatoes through traditional or GM breeding techniques may have to 
replace the use of PPP. 

o  The  EPA  refers  to  post  market  monitoring  plans  in  Spain  over  a  ten  year  period  that 
concluded that no adverse effects on non-target arthropods or soil micro-organisms have 
been observed in relation to the use of Bt crops.  

o  HT  crops:  1)  Potential  advantages:  enhanced  flexibility  in  weed  control,  use  of  less 
persistent  herbicides  and  less  frequently,  facilitate  low  or  no  tillage  cultural  practices  2) 
Potential  disadvantages:  emergence  of  HT  weeds  populations  (not  linked  to  the  GM 
characteristic), potential gene flow to related weed species. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
o  The herbicide programme used on GM oilseed rape and sugar beet had a negative effect 
on  biodiversity  (fewer  weeds  later  in  the  season  for  organisms  at  higher  trophic  levels 
(e.g.  farmland  birds)  compared  to  conventional  management.  This  is  not  seen  for  HT 
maize.8  

o  GM varieties did not deplete the soil of weed seeds.9  

o  The EPA considers that Post Market Monitoring plans performed by the notifiers should 

be audited by authorities.  

o  Teagasc  underlines  that  the  adoption  of  HT  crops  must  be  completed  with  a  weed 

management strategy.10  

o  Teagasc considers that GM crops relevant to Irish agriculture would not pose a risk to bee 
populations  as  the  traits  are  not  insect  targeting.  However,  according  to  the  Banner 
Beekeepers Association, in mono-crop areas, bees could have a poor diet. 

o  The Teagasc CINMa index has highlighted that the use of crops with increased nitrogen 
use  efficiency  would  reduce  nitrogen  application  by  40%,  significantly  reducing  runoff 
into water and air. 

o  Bioremediation (use of GMOs to remove toxic pollutants from the environment) was cited 
as possibly having a positive environmental impact, based on international examples. 

o  The EPA and Teagasc underline that when cultivating HT crops, less weed biomass would 
be produced which could affect the biogeochemical cycles of soils. However, using GM 
blight  resistant  potato  would  decrease  the  number  of  PPP  applications  and  thus  the 
compaction of soil.  

o  The EPA considers that GM crops could have a positive impact on energy requirements 
and  fuel  consumption  by  using  less  fuel  resulting  from  minimum  tillage  cultivation  and 
lower amounts of Plant Protection Products applications 

o  The EPA considers that GMO technology could positively impact climate change via: 

o  Carbon sequestration (reducing the amount of ploughing in conventional tillage). 

o  Reduced fertilizer use and N2O (nitrous oxide) green house gas emissions. 

o  Produce crops to improve the climate impact of ruminants.  

o  Possible need for more specialized forms of transportation to avoid admixtures. 

Other implications 

8 

9 

10 

The Farm Scale Evaluations;  
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080306073937/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/f
se/ 
Botanical and rotational implications of genetically modified herbicide tolerance in winter oilseed rape 
and sugar beet (BRIGHT Project); http://www.hgca.com 
Hurley et al. (2010), Effects of Weed Resistance Concerns and Resistance Management Practices on the 
Value of Roundup Ready® Crops, Journal of Agrobiotechnology, Management and Economics, Vol.12, 
Article 5. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Lithuania1 

1.  ABOUT LITHUANIA 

o  No GMO cultivation2. 

o  No Research activities on GMOs. 
o  Coexistence rules adopted3. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  The  Ministry  of  Environment  of  Lithuania  provided  an  extensive  study  on  the  socio-
economic implication of GMOs which are authorised in Lithuania. In this document, two 
kinds of GM products were analysed: food and feed. The conclusions of this study are not 
directly relevant in the context of this exercise.  

o  The socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation were not analysed. Research on GM 
products  in  Lithuania  is  primarily  focused  on  public  opinion,  labelling  procedure  and 
cultivation opportunities. There  has been little research into the economic aspects of the 
use of these products on a national level.  

o  The study analyses:  

o  The place of GMOs in the food and feed markets 

o  The  impact  of  GM  food  and  feed  on  the  social  environment  (in  the  EU  and  in 

Lithuania, controls, public attitude, attitude of business representatives) 

1 

2 

3 

This  compilation  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by 
Lithuania, and was validated by Lithuania. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: idem footnote 2 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Luxembourg1 

1.  ABOUT LUXEMBOURG 

o  No cultivation of GMOs2.  
o  Research activities: information not available3. 
o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  Introductory  statement  in  which  Luxembourg  supports  the  inclusion  of  socio-economic 

criteria in the authorisation procedure of GMOs at European level. 

o  Luxembourg does not grow GMOs, so they have no ex post experience to report, and in 

general they had difficulties answering the questions. 

o  Luxembourg  welcomes  the  socio-economic  criteria  proposed  by  the  Dutch  COGEM. 

However, implementation details should be discussed at European level. 

o  Freedom  of  choice  of  farmers  and  consumers  is  an  important  socio-economic  criterion. 
Farmers  favour  GMO  free  cultivation  in  Luxembourg,  so  co-existence  measures  are 
necessary, even though not always sufficient. 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Farmers  of  Luxembourg  have  no  economic  interest  to  cultivate:  Bt  or  HT  GM  are  not 
useful;  anticipated  problems  to  market  the  harvest  in  a  strongly  anti-GMO  market; 
Liability in case of adventitious presence of GMOs in conventional/organic seeds remains 
an issue. 

o  Yields  and  quality  of  the  harvest  are  not  expected  to  increase.  GM  crops  prices  are 
expected  to be low due  to the reluctance of  the  Luxemburguese  market  towards  GMOs. 
Conventional  crops  should  obtain  a  premium,  however  they  are  also  at  risk  of  being 
devaluated in case of adventitious presence of GMOs.  

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This  compilation  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by 
Luxembourg, and was validated by Luxembourg. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
o  Furthermore, co-existence measures will increase the production costs, hence impact the 
gross  margin  of  farmers.  Co-existence  will  also  interfere  with  farming  practice  such  as 
rotations. Thus cost of co-existence measures must be supported by the GMO growers. 

o  GMO growing might disturb the cooperation between farmers since it would no longer be 

possible to share machineries due to segregation needs. 

o  GMO seeds are more expensive, so probably they will not lower the production costs. 

o  Occurrences  of  GMOs  will  increase  the  cost  of  production  of  conventional  and  organic 

seeds due to co-existence measures and management of adventitious presence. 

o  The farm saved seeds are limited due to the patents linked to the GM crops.  

o  Organic  farmers  can  be  negatively  impacted  by  adventitious  contamination  (loss  of 
organic labels, organic premium) and costs of preventive measures (co-existence, controls, 
analysis) 

o  Co-existence measures are inefficient to protect beekeepers of GM contamination of the 
honey. Thus, the honey would be almost impossible to market. Beekeepers are particularly 
vulnerable regarding (voluntary and unintentional) dissemination of GMOs. 

o  The quality of harvest should increase for Bt maizes. 

o  Impact on health of workers is not demonstrated as reduction in agricultural toxic inputs is 

not obvious. 

o  Costs of alternative pest/weeds control programmes are well known, but no data are yet 

available on the cost of GMO resistance management.  

o  GMOs reinforce the concentration of the seed sector into few major actors, generating a 

loss of diversity, while sustainable agriculture needs a wide variety of seeds. 

o  The  growing  of  GMOs  risks  to  increase  the  cost  of  seed  multiplying  companies,  seed 
producing  farmers  and  seed  distributors  due  to  segregation  measures  (for  GM, 
conventional and organic actors). 

Impacts on downstream operators  

o  A large majority of consumers are opposed to GMOs. 

o  Segregation will increase costs for all actors of the food chain. 

o  Laboratory tests are already expensive due to inadequate testing methods and high costs of 
the reference materials. The increase of GMOs authorisation will increase testing costs. 

o  Public administration: if more authorisations are granted, public administrations will have 

to increase control measures.  

Economic context 

o  More  GM  crops  will  lead  to  less  diversity  of  varieties  and  species  used  by  farmers, 

marketed by few major seed companies. 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  No local data, but based on international studies Luxembourg denies the benefit of GMOs 

in term of reduction of agricultural inputs (even increase of pesticides use). 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
o  Loss  of  diversity  due  to  concentration  of  the  seed  industry,  affecting  negatively 
biodiversity,  including  animals  (migration  routes,  ecological  corridors).  Furthermore, 
possible negative effect on non-target organisms. 

o  Current GMOs do not demonstrate clear-cut positive effect on use of renewable and non-

renewable resources. 

o  Due to segregation measures, transport of agricultural raw material will increase. 

Other implications 

o  No answer 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Latvia1 

1.  ABOUT LATVIA 

o  No GMO cultivation2. 
o  Research activities: no field trial notification between 2002 and 20073. 
o  Coexistence rules have been adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  LV Ministry of Agriculture funded a study in 2007 on "Economic evaluation on growing 
of  GM  crops  in  Latvia".  Findings  are  spread  in  the  contribution,  following  the 
questionnaire's categories. 

o  A public questionnaire “For or Against GMO in Latvia” was organized by the Ministry of 
Environment of Latvia during the period of December 10, 2008 – March 10, 2009. There 
were 37.440 respondents5:  

-  95% of all the respondents are against GMO cultivation;  
-  94% of all the respondents are against GMO ingredients in fodder;  
-  96% of all the respondents are against GMO ingredients in food; 
-  91% of all the respondents are for GMO free zone. 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

6 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Cost  of  co-existence  measures,  theoretically  calculated,  would  be  high  and  would  over 

costs the potential benefits of GM cultivation. Main reasons are: 

small size of the fields 
conflicts  with  neighbours  and  neighbouring  countries  would  be  unavoidable  and 

- 
- 
serious 
- 
- 
-  high risk for beekeeping industry in case of GM rape seed crops 

Insurance companies don't want to insure GM crops 
less opportunities to sell the harvest due to labelling 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by Latvia, 
and was validated by Latvia. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
total population of Latvia by Eurostat data at 1 January, 2009: 2.261.294 inhabitants 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
o  Based in the above mentioned study, potential losses are linked to the following business 
activities  (be  it  professional  or  amateur):  organic  farming,  seed  farming  and  seed 
production centre for highest class of seeds (especially for cruciferous), beekeeping, rural 
tourism. 

o  Regarding  the  possible  damages  of  GM  crops,  comparison  is  made  with  Heracleum 

sosnowskyi Manden. 

Impacts on downstream operators 

o  Impact on consumer information and protection is mentioned.  

o  Potential  impact  on  laboratories  is  mentioned,  especially  regarding  the  price  of  the 
analysis. If the number of GMO samples significantly increases, it will cause employment 
growth. This will imply more need for training and expensive new equipments.  

o  Seed  testing  laboratories,  working  on  conventional  seeds  quality,  would  face  additional 

costs to ensure purity and coexistence. Prices would increase.  

Economic context 

o  So far, no impact of GM seeds on the seed market (less importance of GM seeds due to 

climatic conditions).  

o  Regarding  the  internal  market  for  services,  there  could  be  an  impact  for  State  plant 
Protection Service involved in control and monitoring of coexistence conditions in Latvia.  

o  Following  potential  impacts  are  mentioned:  farms'  size,  increasing  monoculture,  loss  of 

reputation for other activities in the same region. 

o  Based on the 2007 research project, the largest losses are expected in the Vidzeme region 
(27,6%) and Kurzeme region (26,2%). In these regions, the expected losses exceed 50% 
of  all  potential  losses  in  organic  farming  in  the  country,  which  may  result  from 
uncontrolled spread of GM products.  

Agronomic sustainability 

o  There is no GMO cultivation, so no impact on the agricultural inputs. Thought theoretical 
impacts are mentioned in some cases (potential to reduce use of pesticides or/and patterns 
of use of chemical herbicides.  

o  Potential 

impacts  on  biodiversity  are  mentioned 

for  number  of  agriculture 
species/varieties, agriculture diversity, protected or endangered species and their habitats, 
ecologically  sensitive  areas,  migration  route,  ecological  corridors,  buffer  zones,  flora, 
fauna and landscapes.  

o  Latvia  is  considered  as  one  of  the  richest  European  countries  regarding  biodiversity 

resources. GMO cultivation may have negative impact on biodiversity.  

Other implications 

o  No answer 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Malta1 

1.  ABOUT MALTA 

o  No GMO cultivation2 
o  No Research activities on GMOs3 
o  coexistence rules: no information available4 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  Maltese authorities envisage that, should GMO cultivation take place, a number of socio-

economic impacts would occur, most notably affecting the agronomic sector. 

o  Maltese  agriculture  is  quality  oriented.  Government  and  private  sector  are  engaged  in 
efforts  and  initiatives  (including  funding)  that  promote  and  encourage  quality  schemes 
including organic production. 

o  It is recognised that GMO cultivation would jeopardise these investments due to the fact 
that  it  is  very  difficult  to  apply  co-existence  measures  in  the  context  of  the  Maltese 
agricultural  landscapes  (intensive  and  mixed  cropping,  small-scale  agriculture,  high 
density of fields in close proximity). 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  In general and as a result of targeted consultations on the subject, the public and relevant 
stakeholders have repeatedly expressed their opinion that Malta should remain GMO-free.  

o  Extensive consultation would need to be carried out with the relevant stakeholders on the 
envisaged impact of GMO cultivation and, therefore, Malta is not in a position to provide 
any feedback at this stage.  

Impacts on downstream operators  

o  Extensive consultation would need to be carried out with the relevant stakeholders on the 
envisaged impact of GMO cultivation and, therefore, Malta is not in a position to provide 
any feedback at this stage.  

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by Malta, 
and was validated by Malta. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Economic context 

o  Specific regions and sectors: see general comments. 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  EU-approved GMOs for cultivation are MON810 maize and Amflora potato. Maize is not 
viable  in  Malta  (lack  of  water)  and  there  is  no  maize  relative.  However,  EU-approved 
GMOs which do not have approval for cultivation may have an impact on non-agricultural 
species/varieties.  Authorisation  of  GM  oilseed  rape  could  compromise  the  wild  genetic 
pool  of  Brassicaceae  (22  varieties  of  Brassicaceae,  most  of  which  are  found  in  the  wild 
and have a flowering period with overlaps with GM oilseed rape). 

o  GM  crops  are  an  intensive  monoculture  system  with  no  tillage  and  no  crop  rotation; 

therefore agriculture diversity would decrease considerably in an area.  

o  The  Maltese  islands  have  46  national  and  international  ecologically  sensitive  areas 
dispersed in a territory of 316 km2. GMO cultivation would be either in or in the vicinity 
of  one  of  these  areas.  Therefore  an  impact  on  protected  fauna  or  wild  flora  would  be 
inevitable (hybridisation with wild stock, increase herbicide use, degree of monoculture, 
decrease in crop rotation, in tillage).  

o  Maltese  landscapes  are  known  for  their  colourful  nature  due  to  the  fact  that  fields  are 
mostly less than one hectare and surrounded by rubble walls to reduce erosion and mark 
field boarders.  

o  Thus  multiple  ownerships  occur  in  a  large  agricultural  area  unlike  in  the  rest  of  Europe 
where such a large area would be owned by a single farmer. The colours mentioned earlier 
are made up of the variety of crops that would be found in a multiple owned area (farmers 
growing  different  crops).  If  GMO  cultivation  would  take  place,  to  be  viable,  farmers 
would  have  to  grow  the  same  crop  (with  the  farmers  on  the  borders  growing  refuge 
plants). This would destroy the landscape and biodiversity and affect the flora and fauna 
of the area. 

o  Considering renewable and non renewable resources, climate, transport and use of energy, 
extensive consultations would need to be carried out with the relevant stakeholders on the 
envisaged impact of GMO cultivation and, therefore, Malta is not in a position to provide 
any feedback at this stage.  

Other implications 

o  No Answer. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution  
by the Netherlands1 

1.  ABOUT THE NETHERLANDS 

o  No cultivation of GMOs2 
o  Research  activities  on  GMOS3:  59  notifications  between  2003  and  2007  (carnation, 

potato, apple, maize). 
o  Coexistence rules adopted4 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  NL answer consists in (1) a filled in questionnaire, (2) a report by the advisory committee 
on GMO (COGEM) on socio economic aspects of GMOs, (3) a report by the agricultural 
economic institute (LEI) on economic effects of the EU GMO policy. 

o  COGEM  report:  COGEM  was  requested  to  draw  up  socio-economic  criteria  for  the 
application  of  GMOs  in  agriculture,  including  sustainability  aspects.  COGEM  considers 
that sustainability relates to social, economic and environmental aspects. It is not a static 
concept,  but  a  dynamic  one,  which  depends  of  the  context  (e.g.  society,  culture  and 
religion), time, knowledge, technological capabilities, etc.  

o  Using  conventional  agriculture  as  a  frame  of  reference,  COGEM  suggests  the  following 
nine criteria as "building blocks" for an assessment framework on the socio-economic and 
sustainability aspects of GMOs: 

1.  Benefit  to  society  -  increase  in  yields,  harvest  security  and  other  forms  of  general 

benefit to the society;  

2.  Economics and prosperity - contribution/improvement of local and overall prosperity 

and of the economy;  

3.  Health  and  welfare  –  preserve/improve,  for  workers,  the  local  population  and 

consumers;  

4.  Local and general food supply;  

5.  Cultural  heritage  –  if  desired,  specific  elements  of  cultural  heritage  or  local  customs 

should be preserved;  

6.  Freedom of choice – both consumers and producers should be able to choose between 

GMO and GMO-free products; 

1 

2 

3 

4 

This  compilation  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by  the 
Netherlands, and was validated by the Netherlands. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: information provided by the Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie of the 
Netherlands. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7.  Safety – in terms of both personal health and the environment;  

8.  Biodiversity  -  does  not  a)  lead  to  a  reduction  in  the  agro-biodiversity  of  the 
agricultural environment and where possible strengthens it, and b) damage protected 
or vulnerable biodiversity;  

9.  Environmental quality - The production and processing of GM crops means that a) the 
quality  of  the  soil,  surface water  and  groundwater,  and  air,  does  not  deteriorate  and, 
where possible, is improved and b) the emission of greenhouse gases along the entire 
chain (development, production, processing and transport) remains neutral or declines 
relative to conventional agriculture. 

o  Several elements are already part of existing European assessment/regulatory frameworks 
(e.g. environmental quality, freedom of choice). Therefore, the criteria relevant for socio-
economic evaluation of cultivation of GM crops in Europe that are not yet existent are: (1) 
Benefit to society, (2) economics and prosperity, (3) Cultural heritage. COGEM notes that 
for the operationalization  of the criteria it  would be desirable  that the indicators  used to 
measure  the  criteria:  a)  are  objectively  measurable,  and  b)  can  be  estimated  in  advance. 
Such indicators are not yet readily available for all criteria. 

o  In  an  accompanying  letter,  the  Dutch  authorities  indicate  that  it  is  important  that  when 
considering  cultivation  of  genetically  modified  crops  in  the  EU  Member  States,  these 
three  themes,  which  cannot  be  assessed  on  the  basis  of  the  current  regulations,  can  be 
taken  into  account.  By  giving  Member  States  the  possibility  to  decide  on  cultivation  of 
GMOs on their own territory, Member States can gain experience on these themes, if they 
so  wish.  To  be  able  to  apply  the  criteria  in  practice,  objectifiable  and  measurable 
indicators must be developed for use with these criteria. Furthermore, WTO compliance is 
important.  

o  The COGEM report also points out that all 9 criteria are relevant for cultivation outside 
Europe  followed  by  import  into  Europe.  However,  COGEM  indicated  that,  in  view  of 
trade relations, as well as politically and legally, it is much more complex to draw up an 
assessment framework for sustainability of import than for cultivation in the EU. 

o  COGEM also notes that the introduction of an assessment of the sustainability aspects of 
GM crops could raise questions concerning the sustainability of certain conventional crops 
and cultivation methods which at present, are not assessed in this way. COGEM points out 
that  the  rejection  of  a  GM  crop  on  the  basis  of  socio-economic  arguments,  while  these 
equally apply to conventional crops that are not subject to such criteria, could be met with 
incomprehension. 

o  The  report  by  the  Agricultural  economic  institute  (LEI)  on  economic  effects  of  the  EU 
GMO  policy  concludes  that  asynchronous  EU  approval  of  GM  crops  coupled  with  the 
operation of a zero tolerance threshold for the presence of GMOs not yet approved in the 
EU  causes  trade  disruptions.  This  problem  will  increase  with  the  more  widespread 
cultivation of GMOs outside the EU and can damage the competitive position of European 
industry and lead to loss of employment. 

o  "GMOs  in  European  Agriculture  and  Food  production",  report  of  the  conference 

organised in The Hague (25-26 Nov 2009). 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  NL  has  no  experience  in  cultivation  of  GMOs:  only  ex-ante  estimations  of  the  socio-
economic  consequences  of  GMOs.  In  the  future  farmers  could  be  interested  by  GM 
potatoes (Amflora and another multiple fungi resistant trait currently developed). 

o  Several studies conclude that socio-eco aspects of gm crops should be assessed on a case 
by case basis, taking into account the specific characteristics of the GMO event, but also 
aspects  like  the  cropping  system,  use  of  good  farming  practice  or  the  climate  or  region 
where the cultivation takes place. 

o  GM,  conventional  and  organic  growers  already  agreed  on  co-existence  measures,  which 
will be formalised by the Dutch product board for arable products. Co-existence measures 
are of vital importance to avoid economic damages for the non GM producers. 

o  Seed  industry:  experience  with  imports  show  high  costs  for  checking  potential 

adventitious presence of GMOs in seeds and segregating distribution lines. 

Impacts on downstream operators  

o  There is no GMO cultivation so no impact. 

o  For  food  containing  GMOs,  EU  labelling  requirements  guarantee  freedom  of  choice  for 

consumers. 

o  If  GMOs  come  to  the  market,  limited  extra  administrative  requirements  to  be  expected: 
obligation for the farmer to register the place of cultivation and for the industry to register 
which GMO will be processed and when (by using existing traceability systems). 

o  Furthermore,  measures  will  be  necessary  to  avoid  mixture  of  GMOs  and  non  GM 

commodities during storage, transport or processing. 

o  No GMO specific insurance product for the moment. 

o  Laboratories: no current experience, but future development would result in an increase in 

demand of GMO analysis. 

o  Innovation and research: no or very few research in GMOs by public players in NL. SMEs 

are discouraged by the very high development/authorisation costs. 

o  Difference in definition of GMO between the EU and the USA is mentioned as a source of 
legal  uncertainty,  hence  decrease  in  investment  and  development  of  new  seeds  which 
stunts  innovation  and  can  negatively  impact  progress  in  the  field  of  sustainability.  Seed 
producers would need more clarity on the status of new breeding techniques. 

o  Public administration: no costs related to cultivation for the moment. Focus on contained 

use, field trials and imported GMOs. 

5 

For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Economic context 

o  No impact observed on the internal market as no cultivation for the moment. 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  Since  there  is  no  commercial  cultivation  of  GMOs  in  the  Netherlands,  there  are  no 

observed impacts in the Netherlands on the mentioned topics. 

o  As  regards  climate  change,  possible  future  cultivation  of  GM  potatoes  could  lead  to 

cheaper and more environmentally friendly starch production. 

Other implications 

o  No answer 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Portugal1 

1.  ABOUT PORTUGAL 

o  Cultivation of MON810 Maize (4851 ha in 2008)2. 
o  Research activities on GMOs: 11 field trials notified between 2002 and 2007 (Maize)3. 
o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  Portugal  received  14  answers  to  the  questionnaire  (Public  administration,  farmers,  seed 
industry, consumers, cooperatives and grain handling companies, food and feed industry, 
insurance companies). These answers were sent as such to the Commission. 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Farmers cultivating GM maize report in average an improvement of the productivity, even 
if pest pressure is limited. Lower use of pesticides allows smaller exposure of workers to 
chemicals, larger flexibility of operators in other tasks.  

o  Farmers  cultivating  GM  maize  do  not  report  neighbourhood  conflicts  after  6  years  of 
cultivation, and segregation of harvests to maintain their integrity has been set up without 
major difficulties. For farm structure, especially in regions of small  farms,  farmers  have 
adopted  the  culture  of  the  "production  areas"  which  is  under  the  current  legislation. 
However  this  solution  is  extremely  complicated  to  administer,  although  being  the  only 
solution to the cultivation of GM corn in certain areas.  

o  Organic farmers, although not having yet experienced neighbouring with GM fields, are 
concerned by the risk of conflicts when this will happen. Furthermore, they claim for strict 
coexistence  rules,  and  effective  compensation  schemes  in  case  of  contamination  of 
fields/harvests. Furthermore, the farm-saved seeds practice should be preserved. 

o  According  to  the  association  of  farmers  (ANPROMIS),  the  cultivation  of  corn  varieties 
containing the MON810 event can be justified only in areas where traditionally there are 
attacks from corn borers. 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This  compilation  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by 
Portugal, and was validated by Portugal. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
o  The Ministry of Agriculture (DGADR) mentioned that the cultivation of BT maize only 
represents around 3,8% of the total maize area. In Portugal farmers who wish to cultivate 
GM  maize  must  fulfil  with  national  coexistence  legislation  that  includes  the  following 
obligations: participate in specific training courses, register the cultivation parcel, inform 
by written notification about their intent to cultivate GMO, apply measures of coexistence, 
among others. As mentioned before there is coexistence legislation in place in Portugal. 
According to this legislation the Agricultural central and regional services have performed 
inspection and controls activities, with no additional costs to the GM growers. 

o  The  seed  industry  referred  to  international  studies  to  contribute  to  the  questionnaire.  As 
regards Portugal specifically, over the period 2005-2007, yields would have increased by 
12,5%, ensuring in 2007 a net increase in gross margin of 143,94$/ha, and an impact of 
farm income at national level of 610.000$ (source: Brookes 2008). 

o  According  to  organic  farmers,  in  the  Alentejo  regions  part  of  the  farmers  cultivating 

GMOs left this production due to lack of interest. 

o  Farmers  cultivating  GM  maize  and  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  report  that  GM  and  non 
GM crops are sold the same price, and that there are no particular difficulties to market the 
products. However, GM seeds are more expensive.  

o  The feed and meat sector would gain competitiveness, as GM crops could make Portugal 

produce more corn and be less dependent on third countries.  

o  Control  and  monitoring  program  made  by  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  (284  farmers 
inspected  in  the  last  5  years).  Main  outcomes  are:  better  quality  of  the  harvest  (less 
mycotoxin), increased production, reduction of insecticide use (including less exposure of 
rural workers), and higher cost of the seeds. Globally, the economic balance is considered 
positive.  

o  According to the Ministry of Agriculture, there are no direct impacts on other production 

systems (organic, conventional, beekeeping). 

o  Creation  of  GM  production  zones,  which  are  the  results  of  voluntary  associations  of 
farmers  (cf.  coexistence  rules,  all  the  production  will  be  labelled  as  containing  GM 
varieties). 

Impacts on downstream operators 

o  The Portuguese market would be adaptable to handle GM and conventional grains. Grain 
handling companies have been able to opt to be suppliers of GM labelled grains, non-GM 
labelled grains or both of them, through grain segregation when necessary. 

o  No impact on consumer choice, information and protection is expected.  

o  Grain  handling  companies  would  face  additional  costs  for  handling,  storage, 
administrative requirements and traceability. Segregation at port discharge and warehouse 
storage level between GMOs and non-GM cereals increases the costs more than 50%.  

o  Public  administration:  enforcement  and  implementation  of  legal  provisions  require  the 
implementation  of  monitoring  and  control  programs  and  the  availability  of  specialized 
experts and laboratory infrastructures (financial implications). 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  Organic farmers are concerned by the risk of developing resistance to the Bt toxin, as they 

have a very limited choice of pesticides that they can use. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
o  Environmental benefits: less use of pesticides namely insecticides. 

Other implications 

o  No answer 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Romania1 

1.  ABOUT ROMANIA 

o  Cultivation  of  GMO  since  2007  when  Romania  joined  the  EU:  7146  ha  of  maize 
MON810 in 20082 and 3243 ha of maize MON810 in 2009. Romanian farmers cultivated 
GM soybean line MON 40-3-2 between 1999 and 2006. 

o  Research activities on GMOs: 42 field trial authorizations between 2007 - 20093. 
o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  The  contribution  contains 

inputs  from 

the  National  Authority 

the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development, 
the  National 
for  Consumers  Protection, 
Environmental  Guard,  the  National  Sanitary  Veterinary  and  Food  Safety  Authority,  the 
Public  Health  Institute  Bucharest,  Monsanto  Romania,  Pioneer  Hi-Breed  Romania, 
Syngenta  Agro  SRL  and  Europabio.  Despite  the  fact  that  many  NGOs  are  strongly 
involved in this issue, they did not send any contribution.  

o  The Romanian authorities stressed the following: "We can say that overall, this is not a 
relevant and/or balanced position for Romania to reflect the opinion on socio-economic 
advantages  and  disadvantages  of  each  category  of  GMOs  authorized,  more  like  an 
opinion of GM industry and of the authorities mentioned above." 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

Impact underlined by the control authority:  

o  Conflicts between farmers and between farmers and neighbours.  

Impacts revealed by the companies acting in the field of GMOs (no answer from other 
stakeholders): 

o  Main impacts of GMOs: increased labour flexibility, lowers production cost (saving time, 
energy, insecticides), increased income, better quality of the harvest (no production losses 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This  compilation  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by 
Romania, and was validated by Romania. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
due to insects attack, less mycotoxins and less pesticides residues), improved health and 
safety for farmers (reduced use of insecticides).  

o  GM, conventional and organic growers of maize have co-existed (with good farming and 

co-existence practices). 

Impact on downstream operators  

Impact underlined by the control authorities: 

Public administration: 

o  carrying out inspections to the GMO cultivators and users in order to check the way there 
respect the regulations on protection of the environment (National Environmental Guard); 

o  official  control  of  traceability  and  labelling  of  GM  food  and  feed  include  significant 
number of  qualitative and quantitative  analysis and  a number of samples  to be taken by 
official inspectors (National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority); 

o  The costs are supported from the state budget. 

Impacts  revealed  by  the  companies  acting  in  the  field  of  GMOs  and  public  authority  for 
environmental protection: 

o  No impact on insurance mechanisms in Romania, as there is no such a product developed 

by the insurance companies.  

Economic context 

o  Respondents concluded that the placing on the market of GMO seeds has an impact on the 

internal market. This issue is to be assessed. 

Agronomic sustainability 

Impacts underlined by the control authorities: 

o  Contradictory  answers  on  the  impact  on  the  number  of  non  agriculture  species/varieties 
and  on  agriculture  diversity,  due  to  the  different  results  of  the  specific  studies  on 
agricultural biodiversity made by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and 
the on-site observations of the National Environmental Guard.  

o  No impact on the use of pesticides against target insect pests.  

o  No negative effects on migration routes, ecological corridors, buffer zones. 

Impacts revealed by the companies acting in the field of GMOs: 

o  Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.  

Other implications 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Sweden1 

1.  ABOUT SWEDEN 

o  GMO cultivation: Amflora potato2. 

o  Research  activities  on  GMOs:  24  notifications  between  2002  and  2007  (Apple/pear; 

Arabidopsis thaliana; linseed/flax; maize; oilseed rape, poplar, potato, sugar beet)3. 

o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  The contribution is constituted of a general statement and answers to the questionnaire. It 
elaborated  with  the  input  of  the  118  stakeholders.  The  answers  to  the  questionnaire  are 
exclusively ex ante answers, based on stakeholder's input and review of the literature. 

o  The  Swedish  authorities  state  that  the  European  regulatory  framework  allows  for 
socioeconomic  considerations  to  be  taken  into  account  on  a  case-by-case  basis  but 
consider that a general application of these criteria is unlikely to make the process easier, 
more  consistent  or  foreseeable.  Transparency  of  the  decision  process  may  also  be 
negatively affected.  

o  The regulatory framework should be based on sound science and precautionary principle. 

The scientific evaluation of the safety of the GMO must not be compromised.  

o  A  balancing  act  between  the  interests  of  different  agricultural  sector  in  the  EU  is 

considered to be politically very complicated and costly.  

o  Compliance  with  EU  regulation  and  WTO  should  be  taken  into  consideration  if  socio-
economic considerations are to be taken within the EU-process. Indirect socio-economic 
effects on developing countries need to be considered.  

o  A free choice for farmers and consumers to choose conventional, GM or organic products 

alike is an important guiding principle for Sweden. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by Sweden, 
and was validated by Sweden. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators 

o  Decision to plant GM crops pertains to the farmer, who will assess its impact. Factors to 
consider are variation of biotic and abiotic challenges (climate, pest/weed pressure); cost 
of seeds; cost of biocides. 

o  Farmers  could  benefit  from  use  of  GMO  crops  through  the  more  secure  and  sometimes 
higher yields that has been demonstrated. The profitability for the farmers depends on the 
natural  variation  of  biotic  and  abiotic  challenges  of  the  year  as  well  as  the  cost  of  seed 
compared to the cost of the pesticides replaced. 

o  The benefits of the potato late blight resistant are highlighted: less need for pesticides. 

o  Analysis  done  by  the  Swedish  Agricultural  Board  anticipates  higher  profit  for  farmers 
using  GM  rapeseed,  maize,  potato  and  sugarbeet  (decrease  of  use  of  chemicals).  For 
rapeseed, arbitration should be made between mechanical weed control (high carbon foot 
print) and chemical weed control (associated with HT rapeseed).  

o  It  is  likely  to  have  a  price  premium  for  non-GM  crops.  However,  experience  in  Spain 
(maize)  and  worldwide  (rapeseed)  show  that  this  is  not  always  the  case.  Canadian  GM 
rapeseed is sold at higher price than conventional because it contains fewer weeds. 

o  GMO patenting model  prohibits the cultivation  of farm  saved seeds (which is otherwise 
possible in the EU under certain conditions). This can be seen as negative and costly for 
farmers. From the Competent Authority's perspective, this is good as all products must be 
withdrawn from the market when the authorisation expires. 

o  Organic  farming:  Problematic  to  maintain  the  zero  tolerance  regarding  GMOs,  risk  to 
loose the organic certification and price premium. Price controls/inspections may increase. 

o  Beekeepers: Honey will contain GM pollen and there is some legal uncertainty concerning 

this. 

o  Use  of  insect  resistant  seeds  demonstrated  less  mycotoxin  quantities  in  harvests,  what 
benefits  both  farmers  and  consumers,  and  possibly  less  pesticides  residues.  However,  it 
may be of economic interest to cultivate corn instead of pasture, which would increase the 
use of pesticides all in all. 

o  Three Swedish authorities pointed out that growing glyphosate tolerant crops (sugar beets, 
oilseed  rape  and  corn)  has  possible  positive  effects  on  health  because  more  dangerous 
substances are replaced by a lesser dangerous one (Jordbruksverket 2007). 

o  Swedish seed industry is relatively small and is integrated to multinationals. This industry 
is hindered by the lack of a threshold for adventitious presence of GM seeds in seed lots.  

5 

For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Impacts on downstream operators 

o  Consumers  have  a  negative  attitude  towards  GMOs6.  There  is  a  perceived  high 
willingness to pay for GM-free products according to a multiyear survey between 2001-
2007 in Stockholm. However, a study on actual purchase of strawberries showed that at a 
lower price, consumers are willing to buy GM-strawberries if not treated with pesticides. 
Another  Nordic  study  shows  that  acceptance  of  GMOs  can  be  influenced  by  fat  content 
and taste7. A general survey on attitude showed that gene technology is welcomed when 
impacting allergies and reducing the use of chemicals in agriculture. 

o  Cooperatives and grain handling companies: labelling and traceability of GM-food incur 
costs. Costs of keeping production lines separated are only sustainable for large quantities.  

o  Most of feed companies are GM free, due to policies of farmers and food industries. All 

food industries except pork industry have voluntary GM exclusion policies in place. 

o  Food  and  feed  industry:  soy  is  the  most  impacted  (Sweden  is  dependent  on  imports  for 
feed).  As  GM-soy  cultivation  increases  worldwide,  GM-free  soy  prices  increase  and 
choice  decreases.  Furthermore,  due  to  asynchronous  approvals,  there  will  be  a  price 
premium for EU-authorised GMO soy compared to GM soy not authorised. 

o  Transport companies: avoiding adventitious presence implies high segregation costs. 

o  So  far  no  insurance  company  has  proposed  a  product  targeted  on  GMO  cultivation. 
However  some  companies  have  exempted  damages  on  biological  diversity  from  their 
agricultural  liability  insurances.  No  information  on  existence  of  insurances  for  organic 
farmers  who  lost  organic  label.  The  "Tort"  liability  act  is  applicable  for  economic 
damages suffered by farmers due to GMO cultivation. 

o  Research is more and more done outside the EU because of opposition to GMOs. The cost 
for  development,  patent  protection  and  authorisation  of  GMOs  can  only  be  afforded  by 
major  breeding  companies.  Moreover,  future  decision  on  what  falls  into  the  GMO 
regulatory framework will have a large impact on research and innovation. 

o  Public  administration:  10  agencies  are  involved  in  GMOs  but  current  cost  was  not 
assessed.  If  GMO  cultivation  increases,  cost  would  increase  for  administration  and 
information to the public. 

Economic context 

o  Sweden  highlights  the  worldwide  competition  context  with  third  countries  having  more 
the 

relaxed  approaches  on  GMOs,  hence  contributing 
competitiveness of the EU agricultural sector (e.g. asynchronous approvals).  

impact  negatively 

to 

o  GMO market is monopolistic but no difference with the current seed market. 

o  If  socio-economic  criteria  are  introduced  in  the  regulatory  framework,  it  could  hinder 

internal market by having different national criteria applied. 

o  In regions with traditional/small scale production, GM-crops are assumed to have negative 

effect on brands and image. 

6 
7 

72% - Eurobarometer 2008 
Study on cheese: Lähteenmäki, et al. 2002 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Agronomic sustainability 

o  The assessment of agronomic sustainability and negative impacts on the environment are 

dealt with in the risk assessment of GMOs, according to the current legislation. 

o  Agricultural  input:  effects  on  the  use  of  pesticides,  crop  growing  patterns,  fertilizers, 

tilling, water needs should be analysed for an estimation of input.  

o  Impact on biodiversity will depend on crop and trait and there is no general science based 

information on how Sweden's biodiversity could be impacted. 

o  Impact on renewable and non renewable resources is difficult to estimate. The current GM 
crops  will  not  be  cultivated  on  a  large  scale  in  Sweden.  The  potential  of  the  next 
generation may be higher such as vegetable oil for technical use or plastics. 

o  CO2 emissions of the Swedish farming sector represent 12% of the total CO2 equivalent 
emissions. Technologies that could change the tilling practice and the soil microflora may 
positively  impact  the  field  capacity  to  act  as  a  carbon  sink  (more  research  is  needed). 
Crops designed to improve the climate impact of ruminants are of interest. 

Other implications 

o  No Answer 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Slovenia1 

1.  ABOUT SLOVENIA 

o  No cultivation of GMOs2. 
o  No research activities on GMOs3 related to plants. 
o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  Answer elaborated with the input of the 39 stakeholders consulted (NGOs, associations, 

industry, insurance companies, institutes, faculties, and government) 

o  Regarding the discussion on socio-economic criteria, reference is made to the work done 
by COGEM. The presented themes and associated criteria amongst others could serve as 
starting point for discussion in the EU.   

o  No  cultivations  of  GMOs  in  Slovenia,  so  the  answers  are  assumptions,  based  on 

stakeholders' input and review of the literature. 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  Prices and yields could be impacted. Possibly: higher yield, higher input prices, possible 
loss of income in the "organic" farming sector and potentially also in "conventional". 

o  Possible impact on farmers' production costs: reduction of costs by reduction of pesticide 

use and consumption of fuel, increase of costs because of higher input prices. 

o  Possible impact on labour flexibility: increased flexibility and labour saving.  

o  Quality of the harvest: improvement of the grains quality from reductions in the levels of 
mycotoxin, no GMOs with improved nutritional values (whereas organic grown fruits and 
vegetables are richer in beneficial components). 

o  Possible  appearance  of  resistant  weeds  in  case  of  cultivation  of  HT  crops  which  could 

imply an increase of the amounts and the toxicity of herbicides used.  

o  Prices discrimination between GM and non GM products can be expected.  

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This  compilation  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by 
Slovenia, and was validated by Slovenia. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
o  Farmers should have possibility to choose their type of production.  

o  Contamination of non-GM crops could hinder farmer's privilege to use farm saved seeds. 

o  Farming  practice  (incl.  co-existence  measures):  Lend  holding  and  parcel  structure  are 
exceptionally  dispersed  and  fragmented.  Hence  high  risk  of  cross  contamination,  with 
consequences  on  liability  and  marketability  of  the  harvested  products  (in  particular 
organic products). 

o  Coexistence measures are not yet applied in practice. A compensation fund is envisaged, 
and  it  will  be  filled  with  special  fees  for  unintentional  presence  of  GM  crops  in  other 
products. 

o  Considerable  conflicts  between  neighbouring  farmers  are  anticipated  because  land 
ownership  is  highly  fragmented.  The  legislation  envisages  an  agreement  among 
neighbouring farmers with the GM crop production.  

o  Freedom of choice for consumers should be respected.  

o  Farmers' training is foreseen in the coexistence legislation (for GM farmers).  

o  Beekeeping is an old tradition, beekeepers are sceptical on coexistence, marketability of 

contaminated honey could be jeopardized.  

o  Long tradition of seed production, almost self sufficient for cereal seeds but not for maize 
and  rapeseed.  A  priori,  production  of  GMO  would  not  be  interesting  for  SL  producers, 
who  are  too  small  to  cope  with  the  constraints  related  to  GMO,  in  particular  isolation 
distances, separate mechanisation for cultivation, transport and storage. 

o  More  controls  would  be  necessary  on  conventional  seeds  to  ensure  absence  of  cross 

contamination. 

Impacts on downstream operators  

o  Consumers advocate for non GM products, freedom of choice must be preserved. 

o  Food  and  feed  industries,  transport  companies  must  design  their  production  process  to 

allow segregation and traceability between GM and Non GM. 

o  Laboratories: the cost of monitoring would increase due to coexistence measures and need 

for constant improving or introduction of new detection methods.  

o  Innovation  and  research:  no  experience.  However,  it  is  presumed  that  investment  would 
increase  if  the  attitudes  towards  GMOs  were  more  relaxed  amongst  Europeans.  On  the 
other  hand,  absence  of  GMO  could  stimulate  research  investment  in  conventional 
practices. 

o  Public  administration:  costs  would  rise  up  (management  of  the  authorisations,  co-
existence  and  possible  registration  of  GMO  free  areas,  compensation  fund,  research 
projects…) 

Economic context 

o  No experience, but increased demand for agriculture inspection should happen. 

o  Possible impact on the size of the farms, production practices, influence on reputation of 

regions.  

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
Agronomic sustainability 

o  Agricultural inputs: lack of experience. 

o  Lack of experience on impact on biodiversity. However, possible crossing appearance of 
GM  crop-wild  hybrids  which  may  become  agricultural  weeds  and  compromise  weed 
management  system  and  invade  natural  habitats,  changing  their  biodiversity  value  and 
replace  wild  genes  (genetic  assimilation)  and  reduce  diversity  of  recipient  population. 
Lower  fitness  of  these  plants  may  drive  wild  population  to  extinction  (demographic 
swamping).  Contrary  higher  fitness  may  lead  to  increased  invasiveness  replacing  wild 
populations  and  other  species,  while  gene  flow  from  GM  crops  may  contaminate  seed 
pools and reduce seed quality to be expected.   

o  No Answer 

o  GMOs  could  help  lowering  level  of  greenhouse  gas  emission  (reduction  of  fuel 

consumption, use of no-till and reduced-till farming systems). 

Other implications 

o  No Answer 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution by Slovakia1 

1.  ABOUT SLOVAKIA 

o  Cultivates MON810 Maize since 2006 (875 ha in 2009)2. 
o  Research activities: 1 notification for field trials between 2002 and 20073. 
o  Coexistence rules adopted4. 

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS 

o  The exercise of data collection is considered important by the authorities. 

o  Difficulties to answer due to the limited experience of Slovakia with GMO cultivation.  

o  No study on socio-economic impact has been performed so far. However, two impacting 

elements could already be identified: 

-  Obligation  of  labelling  generates  more  expenses  for  each  product  produced  from 
GMOs, and the consumers will not buy the product. 

-  Some  processing  companies  have  very  low  adventitious  presence  thresholds 
(0.02%), so conventional producers near to GMOs fields have problems to sell. 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators  

o  No answer 

Impacts on downstream operators 

o  No answer 

Economic context 

o  No answer 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

This  compilation  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by 
Slovakia, and was validated by Slovakia. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 
For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Agronomic sustainability 

o  No answer 

Other implications 

o  No answer 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
Socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation 
Non exhaustive compilation of the contribution 
by United Kingdom1 

1.  ABOUT THE UNITED KINGDOM 

o  No cultivation of GMOs2.  
o  Research activities: 6 field trial notifications between 2002 and 20073. 
o  No coexistence rules adopted4. 

o  The Government has changed since the contribution was sent. UK agreed to transmit their 
contribution  in  the  context  of  a  request  for  access  to  document,  on  the  condition  that  a 
disclaimer  makes  clear  that  the  contribution  represents  the  views  of  the  previous 
Government.  

2.  GENERAL COMMENTS  

o  General statement by the authorities of the United Kingdom: 

-  GM applications should be assessed case by case based on the scientific evidence, then 

the normal operation of the market decides whether a GMO is successful or not. 

-  Differing views on GMOs in the United Kingdom: Contrary to Northern Ireland and 
the  central  UK  Government,  Scotland  and  Wales  are  opposed  to  the  cultivation  of 
GMOs. 

-  The  idea  of  allowing  national  decision  making  process  and  a  more  explicit 
consideration  of  socio-economic  factors  has  potential  attraction.  But  many  risks  too, 
so considerable work would need to be done to ascertain the nature of any models for 
EU or Member States decision making. 

-  The United Kingdom has no experience with commercial cultivation on their territory, 

so no first hand evidence of associated socio-economic impact. .  

-  However the impact of not adopting the GMO technology should also be considered: 
This  has  potentially  deterred  research  and  innovation  in  the  UK,  limiting  private  sector 
investment and employment opportunities in the crop biotechnology research base. 

-  Lack of research and investment can hamper the development of potentially beneficial 

new technologies which could have an impact on developing countries. 

o  The  UK  undertook  a  written  consultation  of  stakeholders,  asking  their  opinion  on  the 
possibility  of  including  socio-economic  factors  in  the  decision  making  process,  the 
impacts  which  could  be  assessed,  and  the  expected  impacts  associated  with  GMO 

1 

2 

3 

4 

This compilation was prepared by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by the UK, 
and was validated by the UK. 
Source: Commission report published on 2 April 2009 on the coexistence of genetically modified crops 
with conventional and organic farming (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). 
Source: Research project DG Environment Analysis of field trials management in Member States and 
prevention  of  accidental  entry  into  the  market  place  –  final  report  November  2008  (http://www.gm-
inspectorate.gov.uk/reportsPublications/documents/EUPARTBreview_finalreport_Dec2008.pdf) 
Source: idem footnote 2 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
                                                 
cultivation. 12 organisations responded (which may not represent the whole spectrum of 
stakeholders). 

-  Answers were polarised regarding inclusion of socio-economic in the decision making 
process and possible ways forward. Organisations who believe that the use of GM crops 
could be beneficial, including industry, trade and conventional farming representatives, 
were generally concerned that it would be inappropriate to extend the regulatory regime 
beyond  safety  considerations.  Such  a  requirement  would  be  disproportionate  and 
inconsistent  with  other  technologies,  would  breach  Internal  Market  and  international 
agreements,  and  results  would  be  subjective.  Organisations  including  NGOs  and 
beekeepers who mainly viewed GM crops as a potential threat or problem called to take 
into  account  public  opinion  and  the  impact  of  GMOs  on  the  seed/agricultural  chain, 
personal well-being and happiness, cultural identity, physical health, level of political 
trust and civic engagement, and the community.  

-  The short paper is complemented with the report "A way forward for GMO cultivation 
in Europe?" by the Chatham House Institute. This report was produced after an informal 
workshop discussion involving a key group of UK stakeholders and representatives from 
the Netherlands, Austria and the Commission. 

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

5 

Economic and social implications 

Impacts on upstream operators 

o  No answer 

Impacts on downstream operator 

o  No answer 

Economic context 

o  No answer 

Agronomic sustainability 

o  No answer 

Other implications 

o  No answer 

5 

For more details, please see the full answer at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
ANNEX 3 

Review  of  the  available  scientific  literature  worldwide  on  the  socio-
economic dimensions of cultivation of GMOs 

Publications listed below are peer-reviewed articles, official reports from governmental 
organisations  or  agencies/institutes,  official  international  and  national  statistics,  and 
conference  proceedings  in  which  scientists  presented  results  from  their  research  that 
were not published elsewhere. 

This  review  of  literature  is  extracted  from  the  final  report  of  the  Commission  funded 
project  "Assessment  of  the  economic  performance  of  GM  crops  worldwide"  (Ref. 
ENV.B.3./ETU/2009/0010).  

This report is available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm 

Acquaye, A.K.A., and Traxler, G. (2005). Monopoly power, price discrimination, and access 
to biotechnology innovations. AgBioForum, 8(2&3), 127-133 

Acworth, W., Alasebu, Y., Curtotti, R. (2008). Economic impacts of GM crops in Australia, 
Research  Report  08.4  prepared  for  the  Australian  Government  Department  of  Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Forestry, Canberry, May.  

Ahuja, S.L. (2007). Indian GM cotton experience in 2005. International NGO Journal. 2(4), 
78-81. 

Andersen, M.N., Sausse, C., Lacroix, B., Caul, S. and Messean,A (2007). Agricultural studies 
of GM maize and the field experimental infrastructure of ECOGEN. Pedobiologia. 51, 175-
184. 

Azadi, H. and Ho, P. (2010). Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: 
A review of options for food security.  Biotechnology Advances Volume 28(1), 160-168. 

Bambawale,  O.M.,  Singh,  A.,  Sharma,  O.P.,  Bhosle,  B.B.,  Lavekar,  R.C.,  Dhandapani,  A., 
Kanwar, V., Tanwar, R.K., Rathod, K.S., Patange, N.R. and Pawar, V.M (2004). Performance 
of  Bt  cotton  (MECH-162)  under  Integrated  Pest  management  in  farmers’  participatory  field 
trial in Nanded district, Central India. Current Science. 86(12), 1628-1633. 

Barfoot,  P.,  and  Brookes,  G.  (2007).  Global  impact  of  biotech  crops:  Socio-economic  and 
environmental effects, 1996-2006. AgBioForum, 11(1), 21-38. 

Barrett, C., Moser, C., McHugh, O., and Barison, J. (2004). Better technology, better plots, or 
better  farmers?  Identifying  changes  in  productivity  and  risk  among  Malagasy  rice  farmers. 
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(4), 869-888. 

Barwale,  R.B,  Gadwal,  V.R.,  Zehr,  U.,  and  Zehr,  B.  (2004).  Prospects  for  Bt  Cotton 
Technology in India. AgBioForum, 7(1&2): 23-26. 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
 
Benbrook  C.  (2001).  Do  GM  crops  mean  less  pesticide  less?  Pesticide  Outlook  12(5),  204-
207. 

Benbrook, C. (2003). Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the United 
States: the first eight years. Benbrook Consulting Services.  

Benbrook, C. (2009). Critical Issue Report: The First Thirteen Years. The Organic-Center. 

Bennett,  R.,  Buthelezi,  T.J.,  Ismael,  Y.,  and  Morse,  S.  (2003).  A  case  study  of  smallholder 
farmers in the Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa Outlook on Agriculture, 32, 123-
128. 

Bennett,  R.,  Ismael,  Y.,  Kambhampati,  U.  and  Morse,  S.  (2004).  Economic  impact  of 
genetically-modified cotton in India AgBioforum, 7, 1-5. 

Bennett,  R.,  Ismael,  Y.,  Morse,  S.  and  Shankar,  B.  (2004a).  Reductions  in  insecticide  use 
from adoption of Bt cotton in South Africa: impacts on economic performance and toxic load 
to the environment. Journal of Agricultural Science, 142, 665-674 

Bennett,  R.,  Ismael,  Y.  and  Morse,  S.  (2005)  Explaining  contradictory  evidence  regarding 
impacts  of  genetically  modified  crops  in  developing  countries:  varietal  performance  of 
transgenic cotton in India. Journal of Agricultural Science. 143, 36-41 

Bennett,  R.  M.,  Kambhampati,  U.,  Morse,  S.  and  Ismael,  Y.  (2006a)  Farm-level  economic 
performance  of  genetically-modified  cotton  in India  Review  of  Agricultural  Economics,  28, 
59-71.  

Bennett,  R.  M.,  Morse,  S.  and  Ismael,  Y.  (2006b).  The  economic  impact  of  genetically 
modified  cotton  on  South  African  smallholders:  yield,  profit  and  health  effects  Journal  of 
Development Studies, 42, 662-677.  

Bernard, J.C., Pesek, J.D. and Fan, C. (2004). Delaware farmers' adoption of GE soybeans in 
a time of uncertain US adoption. Agribusiness 20(1), 81-94. 

Brethour,  C.,  Mussell,  A.,  Mayer,  H.  and  Martin,  L.  (2002)  Agronomic,  Economic  and 
Environmental  Impacts  of  the  Commercial  Cultivation  of  Glyphosate  Tolerant  Soybean  in 
Ontario. (George Morris Centre, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 

Brookes,  G. (2002).  The farm level impact of using Bt  maize in Spain. PG Economics Ltd. 
www.pgeconomics.co.uk.  

Brookes, G. (2003a). The farm level impact of using Bt maize in Spain. Crop Biotech Brief, 
3(3). 

Brookes, G. (2003b). The farm level impact of using roundup ready soybeans in Romania. PG 
Economics, August 19, 2003. 

Brookes, G., Aniol, A. (2005): The farm level impact of using GM agronomic traits in Polish 
arable crops, www.pgeconomics.co.uk. 

Brookes,  G.  (2005a)  The  farm-level  impact  of  herbicide-tolerant  soybean  in  Romania. 
AgBioForum. 8, 235-241 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
Brookes,  G.  and  Barfoot,  P.  (2006).  Global  impact  of  biotech  crops:  Socio-economic  and 
environmental effects in the first ten years of commercial use. AgBioForum, 9(3), 139-151. 
Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org. 

Brookes, G. (2007). The benefits of adopting genetically modified, insect resistant (Bt) maize 
in  the  European  Union  (EU):  first  results  from  1998-2006  plantings.  PG  Economics  Ltd. 
www.pgeconomics.co.uk  

Brookes, G., and Barfoot, P. (2009). Global impact of biotech crops: Income and production 
effects 1996-2007. AgBioForum, 12(2), 184-208.  

Brookes,  G.  (2008).  The  impact  of  using  GM  insect  resistant  maize  in  Europe  since  1998. 
International Journal of Biotechnology 10 (2/3), 148-166.  

Bryant,  K.J.,  Nichols,  R.L.,  Allen,  C.T.,  Benson,  N.R.,  Bourland,  F.M.,  Earnest,  L.D., 
Kharboutly,  M.S.,  Smith,  K.L.,  Webster,  E.P.  (2003):  Economic  and Marketing: Transgenic 
Cotton  Cultivars:  An  Economic  Comparison  in  Arkansas,  The  Journal  of  Cotton  Science  7, 
pp. 194-204. 

Bryant,  K.J.,  Reeves,  J.M.,  Nichols,  R.L.,  Greene,  J.K.,  Tingle,  C.H.,  Studebaker,  G.E., 
Bourland,  F.M.,  Capps,  C.D.,  and  Groves,  F.E.  (2008).  Valuing  Transgenic  Cotton 
Technologies  Using  a  Risk/Return  Framework.  Journal  of  Agricultural  and  Applied 
Economics. 40(3), 767-775. 

(2010).  „Standortregister“  of 

BVL 
Lebensmittelsicherheit, 
http://apps2.bvl.bund.de/stareg_web/bundeslandStatistic.do?year=2008. 

the  Bundesamt 

für  Verbraucherschutz  und 

Carew, R. and Smith, E.G (2006). Assessing the Contribution of Genetic Enhancements and 
Fertilizer Application Regimes on Canola Yield and Production Risk in Manitoba. Canadian 
Journal of Agricultural Economics. 54,215-226. 

Carlson,  G.A.,  Marra,  M.C.,  and  Hubbell,  B.  (1998).  Yield,  Insecticide  Use,  and  Profit 
Changes  from  Adoption  of  Bt  Cotton  in  the  Southeast.  Beltwide  Cotton  Conference 
Proceedings 2, 973-974, National Cotton Council, Memphis, TN. 

Carpenter,  J.E.  (2001).  Comparing  Roundup  Ready  and  Conventional  Soybean  Yield  1999. 
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington DC. 

Carpenter,  J.E.,  and  Gianessi,  L.P.  (2001).  Agricultural  Biotechnology:  Updated  Benefits 
Estimates. Washington D.C.: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.  

Carpenter, J. (2010). Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM 
crops, Nature Biotechnology, 28(4), pp. 319-321.  

Cattaneo, M.G., Yafuso, C., Schmidt, C., Huang, C., Rahman, M., Olson, C., Ellers-Kirk, C., 
Orr, B.J., Marsh, S.E., Antilla, L., Dutilleul, P. and Carrièr, Y. (2006) Farm-Scale Evaluation 
of the Impacts of Transgenic Cotton on Biodiversity, Pesticide Use, and Yield. Proceedings of 
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 20, 7571-7576 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
Consmüller,  N.,  Beckmann,  V.,  Schleyer,  C.  (2009).  The  Role  of  Coordination  and 
Cooperation  in  Early  Adoption  of  GM  Crops:  The  Case  of  Bt  Maize  in  Brandenburh, 
Germany, AgBioForum, 12(1), pp. 45-59. 

Contini,  E.,  Sampaio,  M.J.A,  Avila,  A.F.D.  (2003).  The  lack  of  clear  GMO  regulation:  its 
impact  on  researchers  and  farmers  in  Brazil.  International  Journal  of  Biotechnology  2005  - 
Vol. 7, No.1/2/3 ,. 29 – 45. 

Crost, B., Shankar, B., Bennett, R., and Morse, S. (2007). Bias from farmer self-selection in 
GM crop productivity estimates: evidence from India data. Journal of Agricultural Economics 
58, 24-36. 

Degenhardt, H., Horstmann, F., Mulleder, N. (2003). Bt maize in Germany: experience with 
cultivation from 1998 to 2002, Mais 2/2003.  

Demont,  M.,  and  Tollens,  E.  (2001).  Uncertainties  of  estimating  the  Welfare  Effects  of 
Agricultural Biotechnologies in the European Union, Working Paper 2001/58, Department of 
Agricultural and Environmental Economics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. 

Demont,  M.,  and  Tollens,  E.  (2004).  First  impact  of  biotechnology  in  the  EU:  Bt  maize 
adopton in Spain. Ann.appl.Biol. 145, 197-207. 

Dillehay,  B.L.,  Roth,  G.W.,  Calvin,  D.D.,  Kratochvil,  R.J.,  Kuldau,  G.A.,  and  Hyde,  J.A. 
(2004).  Performance  of  Bt  Corn  Hybrids,  their Near  Isolines,  and  Leading  Corn  Hybrids  in 
Pennsylvania and Maryland. Agronomy Journal 96, 818-824.  

Doss,  C.R.  (2006).  Analyzing 
challenges, and opportunities for improvement. Agricultural Economics 34, 207-219. 

technology  adoption  using  microstudies: 

limitations, 

Dwan,  K.,  Altman,D.G.,  Armaiz,  J.A.,  Bloom,  J.,  Chan,  A.,  Cronin,  E.,  Decullier,  E., 
Easterbrook,  P.J.,  Elm,  E.  von.,  Gamble,  C.,  Ghersi,  D.,  Ioannidis,  J.P.A.,  Simes,  J.  and 
Williamson, P.R. (2008). Systematic Review of the Emperical Evidence of Study Publication 
Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias. PLoS ONE. 3(8), 1 – 31. 

Ervin, D.E., Batie, S., Welsh, R., Carpenter, C., Fern, J..I., Richman, N.J., and Schulz, M.A. 
(2000).  Transgenic  crops:  An  environmental  assessment.  Policy  Studies  Report  No.15 
Arlington, Va., USA: Henry, A.. Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental Policy, 
Winrock International.  

Falck-Zepeda,  J.B.,  Traxler,  G  and  Nelson,  R.  (2000).  Rent  creation  and  distribution  from 
biotechnology  innovations:  the  case  of  Bt  cotton  and  herbicide-tolerant  soybean  in  1997. 
Agribusiness. 16(1), 21-32 

Fernandez-Cornejo,  J.  &  McBride,  W.  (2000)  Genetically  Engineered  Crops  for  Pest 
Management  in  U.S.  Agriculture:  Farm-Level  Effects  .  (U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture 
Economic Research Service, Washington, District of Columbia, USA). 

Fernandez-Cornejo,  J.,  Daberkow,  S.,  and  McBride,  W.D.  (2001).  Decomposing  the  size 
effect  on  the  adoption  of  innovations:  Agribiotechnology  and  precision  agriculture.  
AgBioForum 4(2), 124-136. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
Fernandez-Cornejo,  J.  &  McBride,  W.  (2002)  Adoption  of  Bioengineered  Crops  (U.S. 
Department  of  Agriculture  Economic  Research  Service,  Washington,  District  of  Columbia, 
USA). 

Fernandez-Cornejo, J. & Li, J. (2005) Impacts of Adopting Genetically Engineered Crops in 
the  USA:The  Case  of  Bt  Corn.  Presented  at  the  American  Agricultural  Economics 
Association Annual Meeting, July 24-27, Providence, Rhode Island. 

Finger, R., Hartmann, M., and Feitknecht, M. (2009). Adoption patterns of herbicide-tolerant 
soybeans in Argentina. AgBioForum, 12(3&4), 404-411. 

Finger,  R.  (2010).  Evidence  of  slowing  yield  growth  -  The  example  of  Swiss  cereal  yields. 
Food Policy 35: 175-182. 

Fitt,  G.P.  (2003).  Deployment  and  impact  of  transgenic  Bt  cotton  in  Australia.  In  The 
Economic and 

Environmental  Impacts  of  Agbiotech:,  A  Global  Perspective.  N.G.  Kalaitzandonakes  (Ed) 
(Kluwer Academic/Plenum 

Publishers, New York, New York, USA) 

FMI (2008). Emerging and Developing Economies List. World Economic Outlook Database. 
fund: 
monetary 
International 
Retrieved 
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/groups.htm#oem 

from 

Fok, M.A.C., Gouse, M., Hofs, J. & Kirsten, J. (2008) Smallholders' use of Bt cotton under 
unfavourable context: Lessons from South Africa. 2008 Beltwide Cotton Conferences . 423-
434 

Fu, G., Chen, S. and McCool, D.K. (2006). Modeling the impacts of no-till practice on soil 
erosion  and  sediment  yield  with  RUSLE,  SEDD,  and  ArcView  GIS.  Soil  and  Tillage 
Research. 85, 38-49 

Gianessi,  L.,  Silvers,  C.S.,  Sankula,  S.,  and  Carpenter,  J.E.  (2002).  Plant  biotechnology: 
current  and  potential  impacts  for  improving  pest  management  in  U.S.  agriculture,  National 
Center for Food and Agricultural Policy Study, 1-75. 

Gibbons,  J.D.  and  S.  Chakraborti  (2003).  Nonparametric  Statistical  Inference.  New  York 
2003. 

Gibson  IV,  J.W.,  Laughlin,  D.,  Luttrell,  R.G.,  Parker,  D.,  Reed,  J.,  Harris,  A.  (1997). 
Comparisons  of  Costs  and  Returns  Associated  with  Heliothis  Resistant  Bt  Cotton  to  Non-
Resistant Varieties, Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference 1997. 

Gómez-Barbero,  M.,  &  Rodrigues-Cerezo,  E.  (2006).  Economic  Impact  of  Dominant  GM 
Crops  Worldwide:  a  review.  Technical  Review  series.  Joint  Research  Center.  Sevilla: 
European Commission.  

Gómez-Barbero, M., Berbel J. and Rodriguez-Cerezo, E. (2008a). Adoption and performance 
of the first GM crop introduced in EU agriculture: Bt maize in Spain.  Joint Research Center. 
Sevilla: European Commission. 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
Gómez-Barbero,  M.,  Berbel  J.  and  Rodriguez-Cerezo,  E.  (2008b),  Bt  corn  in  Spain  —  the 
performance of the EU's first GM crop, Correspondence, Nature Biotechnology 26, 384 - 386 
(2008) 

Gouse, M., Kirsten, J.K., and Jenkins, L. (2003). Bt Cotton in South Africa: Adoption and the 
impact on farm incomes amongst small-scale and large-scale farmers. Agrekon 42(1),.15-28. 

Gouse,  M.,  Pray,  C.E.,  Kirsten,  J.,  Schimmelpfennig,  D.  (2005).  A  GM  subsistence  crop  in 
Africa:  the  case  fo  Bt  white  maize  in  South  Africa,  International  Journal  of  Biotechnology, 
7(1/2/3), 84-94. 

Gouse,  M.,  Piesse,  J.  and  Thirtle,  C  (2006).  Output  and  Labour  Effects  of  GM  Maize  and 
Minimum  Tillage  in  a  Communal  Area  of  Kwazulu-Natal.  Journal  of  Development 
Perspectives. 2(2), 71-86. 

Gouse, M., Pray, C., Schimmelpfennig, D. & Kirsten, J. (2006a) Three seasons of subsistence 
insectresistant maize in South Africa: Have smallholders benefited? AgBioForum 9 (1), 15-22 

Gouse,  M.,  Piesse,  J.,  Thirtle,  C.  &  Poulton,  C.  (2009)  Assessing  the  performance  of  GM 
maize amongst smallholders in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. AgBioForum 12(1), 78-89  

Gruère GP, Mehta-Bhatt P, and Sengupta D (2008). Bt cotton and farmers suicides in India: 
reviewing  the  evidence.  IFPRI  discussion  paper  00808.  International  Food  Policy  Research 
Institute, Washington, D.C. 

Hafner,  S.  (2003).  Trends  in  maize,  rice,  and  wheat  yields  for  188  nations  over  the  past  40 
years:  a  prevalence  of  linear  growth.  Agriculture,  Ecosystems  &  Environment  97  (1),  275-
283. 

Hall, C. and Moran, D (2006). Investigating GM risk perceptions: A survey of anti-GM and 
environmental campaign group members. Journal of Rural Studies. (22), 29-37. 

Harri,  A.,  Erdem,  C.,  Coble,  K.H.  and  Knight,  T.O.  (2008).  Crop  Yield  Distributions:  A 
Reconciliation  of  Previous  Research  and  Statistical  Tests  for  Normality.  Review  of 
Agricultural Economics. 31(1), 163-182 

Herring,  R.J.  (2008).  Whose  numbers  count ?  Probing  discrepant  evidence  on  transgenic 
cotton  in    the  Warangal  district  of  India.  International  Journal  of  Multiple  Research 
Approaches. 2:145-159. 

Hofs, J., Fok, M. and Vaissayre, M (2006). Impact of Bt cotton adoption on pesticide use by 
smallholders:  A  2-year  survey  in  Makhatini  Flats  (South  Africa).  Crop  Protection.  25,  984-
988. 

Horna,  D.,  Zambrano,  P.,  Falck-Zepeda,  J.,  Sengooba,  T.,  Gruère,  G.,  Kyotalimyo,  M.  and 
Schiffer,  E.  (2009).  Assessing  the  Potential  Impact  of  Genetically  Modified  Cotton  in 
Uganda. International Food Policy Research Institute, Brief No 16. 

Huang, J., Hu, R., Fan, C., Pray, C.E. and Rozelle, S. (2002a). Bt Cotton Benefits, Costs, and 
Impacts in China. AgBioForum. 5(4), 153-166. 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
Huang,  J.,  Pray,  C.,  and  Rozelle,  S.  (2002).  Enhancing  the  crops  to  feed  the  poor.  Nature 
418:678–684. 

Huang,  J.,  Hu,  R.,  Rozelle,  S.,  Qiao,  F.  &  Pray,  C.E.  (2002b)  Transgenic  varieties  and 
productivity of smallholder cotton farmers in China. Aust. J. Agr. Resour. Ec . 46, 367-387. 

Huang,  J.,  Hu,  R.,  Van  Meijl,  H.,  Van  Tongeren,  F.  (2004).:  Biotechnology  boosts  to  crop 
productivity in China: trade and welfare implications, Journal of Development Economics 75, 
27-54. 

Huang,  J.,  Hu,  R.,  Rozelle,  S.,  and  Pray,  C.E.  (2005).  Insect-resistant  GM  rice  in  farmers` 
fields: Assessing productivity and health effects in China. Science 308, 688-690. 

International  Service  for  the  Acquisition  of  Agri-Biotech  Applications  (ISAAA)  (2010). 
Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009. The first fourteen years, 1996 to 
2009, 
Summary, 
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/executivesummary/default.asp   

Executive 

41-2009: 

ISAAA 

Brief 

Ismael,  Y.,  Bennett,  R.,  and  Morse,  S.  (2002a).  Farm-level  economic 
impact  of 
biotechnology: smallholder Bt cotton farmers in South Africa. Outlook on Agriculture 31(2), 
107-111. 

Ismael, Y., Bennett, R., and Morse, S. (2002). Benefits from Bt Cotton Use by Smallholder 
Farmers in South Africa. AgBioForum 5(1), 1-5. 

James, C. (2009). Executive summary - Global status of commercialised biotech/GM crops: 
2009.  Ithaca:  The  International  Service  for  the  Acquisition  of  Agri-biotech  Applications 
(ISAAA). 
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/executivesummary/default.asp 

James, C. (2007). Executive summary - Global status of Commercialized biotech/GM Crops: 
2007.  Ithaca:  The  International  Service  for  the  Acquisition  of  Agri-biotech  Applications 
(ISAAA). 

James, C. (2006). Executive summary - Global status of commercialised biotech/GM crops: 
2006.  Ithaca:  The  International  Service  for  the  Acquisition  of  Agri-biotech  Applications 
(ISAAA). 

James, C. (2002). Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2001. ISAAA Brief 
No. 26. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. 

Jost, P., Shurley, D., Culpepper, S., Roberts, P., Nichols, R., Reeves, J., Anthony, S. (2008). 
Economci  Comparisons  of  Transgenic  and  Nontransgenic  Cotton  Production  Systems  in 
Georgia, Agronomy Journal, 100(1), 42-51. 

Kambhampati,  U.,  Morse,  S.,  Bennett,  R.  &  Ismael,  Y.  (2006)  Farm-level  performance  of 
genetically modified cotton: A frontier analysis of cotton production in Maharashtra. Outlook 
on Ag. 35(4), 291-297 

Klotz-Ingram,  C.,  Jans,  S.,  Fernandez-Cornejo,  J  &  McBride,  W.  (1999)  Farm-level 
production effects related to the adoption of genetically modified cotton for pest management. 
AgBioForum 2, 73-84 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
Khush, G.S. (1999). Green revolution: preparing for the 21st century. Genome 42 (4), 646–
655. 

Lean,  G.  (2008).  Exposed:  the  great  GM  crops  myth.  The  Independent,  20  April  2008. 
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-
812179.html 

Lheureux,  K.,  and  Menrad,  K.  (2004).  A  decade  of  European  field  trials  with  genetically 
modified plants. Environmental Biosafety Research 3 (2004), 99-107. 

Lobell,  D.B.,  Cassman,  K.G.  and  Field,  C.B.  (2009).  Crop  Yields  Gaps:  Their  Importance, 
Magnitudes, and Causes. Annual Review Environmental Resources. 34, 179-204 

Maciejczak, M. (2008). Farm-level economic impact of Bt maize cultivation in the European 
Union.  Does  GM  technology  reduce  or  increase  the  risk?  108th  seminar  of  European 
Association  of  Agricultural  Economists:  „Income  stabilisation  in  a  changing  agricultural 
world: policy and tools”. 8-9 February, 2008, Warsaw, Poland. 

Marra,  M.,  Carlson,  G.,  Hubbell,  B.  (1998).  Economic  Impacts  of  the  First  Crop 
Biotechnologies, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State 
University. 

Marra,  M.C.,  Hubbell,  B.,  and  Carlson,  G.A.  (2001).  Information  quality,  technology 
depreciation,  and  Bt  cotton  adoption  in  the  Southeast.  Journal  of  Agricultural  and  Resource 
Economics 26(1), 159-75. 

Marra,  M.C.,  Pardey,  P.G.,  and  Alston,  J.M.  (2002).  The  Payoffs  to  Agricultural 
Biotechnology: an Assessment of the Evidence, EPTD Discussion Paper no.87, Environment 
and  Production  Technology  Devision,  International  Food  Policy  Research  Institute, 
Washington/US. 

Marra, M.C., Piggott, N.E. & Carlson, G.A. (2004) The Net Benefits, Including Convenience, 
of  Roundup  Ready  Soybean:  Results  From  a  National  Survey.  Technical  Bulletin  2004-3. 
(NSF Center for IPM, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA) 

Men X, Ge F, Edwards CA, Yardim EN. (2004). Influence of pesticide applications on pest 
and predatory arthropods associated with transgenic Bt cotton and nontransgenic cotton plants 
in China. Phytoparasitica 32(3), 46–54. 

Morse, S., and Bennett, R. (2008): Impact of Bt cotton on farmer livelihoods in South Africa. 
International Journal of Biotechnology 10(2-3): 224-239. 

Morse, S., Bennett, R. and Ismael, Y. (2005). Bt-cotton boosts the gross margin of small-scale 
cotton producers in South Africa. International Journal of Biotechnology, 17, 72-83. 

Morse, S., Bennett, R., and Ismael, Y. (2007a). Isolating the `farmer` effect as a component of 
the advantage of growing genetically modified varieties in developing countries: a Bt cotton 
case study of Jalgaon, India. Journal of Agricultural Science 145, 491-500. 

Morse, S., Bennett, R. M. and Ismael, Y. (2007b) GM crops: real benefits for resource-poor 
farmers in developing countries or greater inequality? AgBioforum, 10, 44-50. 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
Morse,  S.,  Bennett,  R.  &  Ismael,  Y.  (2007)  Inequality  and  GM  crops:  A  case-study  of  Bt 
cotton in India. AgBioForum 10, 44-50 

National  Research  Council  (2010).  The  Impact  of  Genetically  Engineered  Crops  on  Farm 
Sustainability in the United States. Washington DC. The National Academies Press. 

Oerke,  E.C.  and  Dehne,  H.W.  (1997).  Global  crop  production  and  the  efficacy  of  crop 
protection-current situation and future trends. European Journal of Plant Pathology 103, 203–
215. 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partner
Name=3&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1023%2FA%3A1008602111248
&_acct=C000043379&_version=1&_userid=791130&md5=71aa617ae59ba088a00d5862cd8
86bc8 

Pardey,  P.G.,  and  Beitema,  N.M.  (2001).  Slow  magic:  Agricultural  R&D  a  century  after 
Mendel,  IFPRI  Food  Policy  Report,  Washington  D.C.:  International  Food  Policy  Research 
Institute. 

Pemsl, D., Waibel, H. & Orphal J. A methodology to assess the profitability of Bt-cotton: case 
study results from the state of Karnataka, India. Crop Prot. 23, 1249-1257 

Pemsl,  D  and  Waibel,  H  (2007).  Assessing  the  profitability  of  different  crop  protection 
strategies in cotton: Case study results from Shandong Province, China. Agricultural Systems. 
95, 28-36. 

Pray,  C.E.,  Huang,  J.,  Ma,  D.,  &  Qiao,  F.  (2001).  Impact  of  Bt  cotton  in  China.  World 
Development 29, 813-825. 

Price, G.K., Lin, W., Falck-Zepeda, J.B., Fernandez-Cornejo, J. (2003). Size and Distribution 
of  Market  Benefits  From  Adopting  Biotech  Crops,  Electronic  Report  from  the  Economic 
Research  Service,  USDA,  Technical  Bulletin  Number  1906,  Washington  DS,  USA. 
http://ers.usda.gov/publications/tb1906/tb1906.pdf (Qaim et al. 2003).  

Qaim,  M.  (2003).  Bt  Cotton  in  India:  Field  Trial  Results  and  Economic  Projections.  World 
Development 31(12), 2115-2127. 

Qaim,  M.,  and  Zilberman,  D.  (2003).  Yield  Effects  of  Genetically  Modified  Crops  in 
Developing Countries, Science 299(900), 900-902. 

Qaim,  M.  &  de  Janvry,  (2003)  A.  Genetically  modified  crops,  corporate  pricing  strategies, 
and farmers' adoption: The case of Bt cotton in Argentina. Am. J. Agr. Econ . 85, 814-828 

Qaim,  M.  (2005).  Agricultural  biotechnology  adoption  in  developing  countries.  American 
Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(5), 1317-1324. 

Qaim,  M.  &  de  Janvry,  A.  (2005)  Bt  cotton  and  pesticide  use  in  Argentina:  economic  and 
environmental effects. Environ. Dev. Econ . 10, 179-200 

Qaim,  M.,  and  Traxler,  G.  (2005).  Roundup  Ready  soybeans  in  Argentina:  farm  level  and 
aggregate welfare effects. Agricultural Economics 32(1), 73–86. 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Naik, G. and Zilberman, D. (2006). Adoption of Bt Cotton and 
Impact Variability: Insights from India. 

Qaim, M., Pray, C.E., and Zilberman, D. (2008). Economic and Social Considerations in the 
Adoption  of  Bt  Crops.  In:  Romeis,  J.,  Shelton,  A.M.,  Kennedy,  G.G.,  Integration  of 
Insect.Resistant  Genetically  Modified  Crops  within  IPM  Programs,  Springer  Science,  329-
356. 

Qaim M (2009). The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops. Annual Review of Resource 
Economics 1, 665-694. 

Qayum, A. & Sakkhari, K. (2003) The Bt gene fails in India. Seedling , July. 

Qayum,  A.  &  Sakkhari,  K.  (2006)  Bt  Cotton  in  Andhra  Pradesh--Three  Year  Assessment. 
(Deccan Development Society, Andhra Pradesh, India). 

R Development Core Team (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 
R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org. 

Ramasundaram, P., Vennila, S. & Ingle, R.K. (2007) Bt cotton performance and constraints in 
central India. Outlook on Agriculture 36, 175-180. 

Raney  T  (2006).  Economic  impact  of  transgenic  crops  in  developing  countries.  Current 
Opinion in Biotechnology 17(2), 174-178. 

Regúnaga,  M.,  Fernández,  S.,  and  Opacak,  G.  (2003).  El  Impacto  de  los  Cultivos 
Genéticamente  modificados  en  la  Agricultura  Argentina,  Programa  de  Agronegocios  y 
Alimentos, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires.  

ReJesus,  R.M.,  Greene,  J.K.,  Hamming,  M.D.,  Curtis,  C.E.  (1997).  Economic  Analysis  of 
Insect  Management  Strategies  for  Transgenic  Bt  Cotton  Production  in  South  Carolina, 
Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference 1997.  

Sadashivappa, P., Qaim, M. (2009). Bt Cotton in India: Development of Benefits and the Role 
of Government Seed Price Interventions, AgBioForum. 12(2), 172-183. 

Sahai,  S.  and  Rahman,  S  (2003).  Performance  of  Bt  Cotton  in  India:  Data  from  the  first 
commercial  crop.  Gene  Campaign.  [online]  http://www.genecampaign.org/btcotton.htm. 
accessed 6/10/2009. 

Sanvido  O.,  Romeis  J.,  and  Bigler  F.  (2007).  Ecological  impacts  of  genetically  modified 
crops: ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 
107, 235-278. 

Scatasta,  S.,  Wesseler,  J.,  and  Demont,  M.  (2006).  A  Critical  Assessment  of  Methods  for 
Analysis  of  Social  Welfare  Impacts  of  Genetically  Modified  Crops:  A  Literature  Survey, 
Discussion Paper 27, Mansholt Graduate School, Wageningen/Netherlands.  

Schiefer, C. (2008). Ergebnisse des Anbaus von Bt-Mais in Sachsen, Präsentation, Sächsische 
Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Freistaat Sachsen.   

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
Schiefer,  C.,  Schubert,  R.,  Pölitz  B.,  Kühne,  A.,  Westphal,  K.,  Steinhöfel,  O.,  Schaerff,  A. 
(2008).  Untersuchungen  zum  Anbau  von  GVO  in  Sachsen,  Schriftenreihe  der  Sächsischen 
Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Heft 15/2008, Sächsische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft. 

Schmidt, K., Wilhelm, R., Schmidtke, J., Beissner, L., Mönkemeyer, W., Böttinger, P., Sweet, 
J., and Schiemann, J. (2008). Farm questionnaires for monitroing genetically modified crops: 
a case study using GM maize. Environmental Biosavety Research 7, 163-179. 

Shankar,  B.,  and  Thirtle,  C.  (2005).  Pesticide  Productivity  and  Transgenic  Cotton 
Technology: The South African Smallholder Case. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(1), 
97-116. 

Shankar, B., Bennett, R. And Morse, S (2008). Production Risk, pesticide use and GM crop 
technology in South Africa. Applied Economics. 40(19), 2489-2500. 

Sheridan, C. (2009). Report claims no yield advantage for Bt crops. Nature Biotechnology 27, 
588 – 589. 

Smale, M., Zambrano, P. and Cartel, M. (2006). Bales and Balance: A Review of the Methods 
Used  to  Assess  the  Economic  Impact  of  Bt  Cotton  on  Farmers  in  Developing  Economics. 
AgBioForum 9(3), 195-212. 

Smale,  M.,  Zambrano,  P.,  Falck-Zepeda,  J.,  Gruère,  G.,  and  Matuschke,  I.  (2008).  The 
economic  impact  of  transgenic  crops  in  developing  countries:  a  note  on  the  methods. 
International Journal of Biotechnology 10(6), 519-551. 

Smale, M., Zambrano, P., Gruère, G., Falck-Zepeda, J., Matuschke, I., Horna, D., Nagarajan, 
L., Yerramareddy, I., and Jones, H. (2009). Measuring the Economic Impacts of Transgenic 
Crops  in  Developing  Agriculture  during  the  First  Decade,  Food  Policy  Review  10, 
International 
[DOI: 
10.2499/0896295117FPRev10] 

Institute,  Washington  D.C. 

Research 

Policy 

Food 

Stark, Jr., C.R. (1997): Economic of Transgenic Cotton: Some Indications Based on Georgia 
Producers, Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference 1997.   

Subramanian, A. & Qaim, M. (2009) Village-wide effects of Agricultural Biotechnology: The 
case of Bt cotton in India. World Dev . 37, 256-267 

Subramanian,  A.,  Kirwan,  K.,  Pink,  D.,  Quaim,  M.  (2010)  GM  crops  and  gender  issues. 
Nature Biotechnology 28, 404–406 

Then, C (2010). Agro-Biotechnology: New plant pest caused by genetically engineered corn. 
Germany. 
Testbiotech 
http://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/WBC%20en_25_3_2010.pdf 

Report  March 

Greenpeace 

prepared 

2010, 

for 

Thirtle, C., Beyers, L., Ismael, Y., and Piesse, J. (2003). Can GM-technologies help the poor? 
The impact of Bt cotton in Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu Natal. World Development 31(4), 717-
732. 

Tol,  R.S.J.  (2008).  The  Social  Cost  of  Carbon:  Trends,  Outliers  and  Catastrophes. 
Economics—the Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 2(25), 1–24. 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
Traxler, G. and Godoy-Avila, S. (2004). Transgenic Cotton in Mexico. AgBioForum. 7(1&2), 
57-62. 

Traxler, G. (2006). The GMO experience in North and South America. International Journal 
of Technology and Globalisation 2(1/2): 46-64.  

Trigo,  E.J.,  and  Cap,  E.J.  (2003).  The  impact  of  the  introduction  of  transgenic  crops  in 
Argentinean agriculture. AgBioForum 6(3), 87-94.  

Winship, C., and Morgan, S.L. (1999). The Estimation of Causal Effects from observational 
data. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25, 659-707. 

Wossink,  A.  &  Denaux,  Z.S.  (2006)  Environmental  and  cost  efficiency  of  pesticide  use  in 
transgenic and conventional cotton production. Agr. Syst . 90, 312-328 

Yorobe, J.M., and Quincoy, C.B. (2004). Economic impact of Bt corn in the Philippines. In: 
Impact Assessment  of  Bt Corn  in the  Philippines,  Terminal  report,  International Service for 
the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA), Ithaca, NY. 

EN 

96 

   EN