Study: GMO Ban Would Hurt Economy And Environment

Study: GMO Ban Would Hurt Economy And Environment

Food prices could rise by more than 2% and greenhouse gas emissions would increase substantially according to a paper to be presented at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting in Boston next week.


The production and use of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) is one of the most controversial agricultural topics worldwide.

The European Union, for example, doesn’t allow importing GMO corn and soybeans. In the U.S., on the other hand, FDA regulates GMOs and USDA indicates GMO use results in “benefits to farmers, producers, and consumers.” EPA also regulates greenhouse gases linked to GMO production.

Despite those benefits there are many groups that believe GMOs have no business in farm fields and grocery stores.

“There are people that would like to ban GMOs,” said Wally Tyner, a Purdue University economist. “We wanted to see what the result of a ban would be when it comes to food prices and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.”

Tyner will discuss his findings as part of the 2016 AAEA Annual Meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 2, at 9:45 a.m. at Boston’s Marriott Copley Square, in Salon A on the fourth floor. Tyner’s paper is titled “Evaluating the Economic and Environmental Impacts of a Global GMO Ban.”

An abstract from the paper concludes:

“Here the goal is to contribute to the literature on the benefits of GMO technology by estimating the impacts on price, supply, and welfare. Food price impacts range from an increase of 0.27% to 2.2%, depending on the region.

“Total welfare losses associated with loss of GMO technology total up to $9.75 billion. The loss of GMO traits as an intensification technology has not only economic impacts, but also environmental ones.

“The full environmental analysis of GMO is not undertaken here. Rather we model the land use change owing to the loss of GMO traits and calculate the associated increase in GHG emissions. We predict a substantial increase in GHG emissions if GMO technology is banned.”


Leave a Reply

Dm says:

So nature knows nothing and if we cannot play God then it will be bad for the world. Maybe we should look at some self limitation and not have to have raspberries in December anything else we want whenever we want it just because the guvmint and business say it is ok

Karen Runkle says:

No one has mentioned the Health Hazards of GMO’s —-Why doesn’t the European union accept GMO?

Eric Michielssen says:

Interesting that your basic hypoteneuse is to explore the benefits of GMO production rather than a simple exploration of the effects found whether positive or negative…..the basis scientific method. Also, quite telling that you should not the oversignt thru FDA…conveniently administered by the former corporate lawyer for Monsanto…..

farmerandcookSTEVE SPRINKEL says:

Feel free to speak English here. If you use the word “welfare” as shorthand we need to understand a little context. We associate “welfare” with government aid. Is the word meant to imply a general economic negative? Ten billion is a rather large figure to not back up but I guess we’ll have to see what the rest of the paper says. Hopefully the total cost of USDA and USTR officials and attorneys defending this technology across the globe is part of the financial equation. What was so broke that we had to eventually permit 2,4D as a multi-million acre GMO herbicde practice? We knew glyphos would lose it’s effectiveness and now this. Is paraquat next?

PJ says:

Gee, I wonder where the funds that paid for such an obviously slanted study came from.
I would wager some big corporation Supplied big $$$$ for Wally Tyner, and Purdue University.
Be it directly or indirectly, (through subsidiary’s) I suspect Monsanto and/or Dupont, Hoechst Celanese (etc..) had some toxic fingers involved in this “Study” !