Transcript Pesticide reduction - ask

PESTICIDE REDUCTION
IN BIOTECH CROPS
- General Presentation -
KEY POINTS
Pesticide reduction is a political mandate across
Europe.
As a message to society, it is highly relevant,
easily understood and broadly accepted as a
consumer benefit.
KEY POINTS
The chemical industry is constantly seeking
products with higher unit activity and more
favourable environmental and safety profiles.
The insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant biotech
crops introduced since 1996 have
shown that significant reductions of pesticide use
are possible, while maintaining
yield and quality.
THE PUBLIC IS CONCERNED ABOUT PESTICIDES
« I will name several concerns that one can have regarding French agriculture for the 5
coming years. For each of these concerns, please tell me whether you consider it to be
essential, very important, important, not so important or not at all important“
• Better preserve the quality of soils,
water and air by reducing the use of
pesticides
41
• Develop the use of more
environmentally-friendly agricultural
practices
38
• Allow a sufficient number of
farmers to live off their work
19
• Obtain food products that are less
expensive for the consumer
18
59%
29
28
• Allow France to stay an important
exporting country of agricultural
products
73%
35
30
• Help to fulfill the food need of an
expanding world population
79%
38
26
54%
51%
32
Essential
0
20
Very important
42%
24
40
60
80
100
(TOTAL = 1003 interviewees)
PESTICIDE USE REDUCTION IN THE US AND CANADA
Changes in pesticide use patterns since the introduction of
biotech canola, corn and soybean:
• HT Canola – Canada
Reduction of ~ 6 million kg in 2000
CCC, 2000
• RR Soybean – USA
Reduction of 10% (ai/ha) in 1998
Reduction of ~ 7 million kg (ai) from 1997 to 2009
USDA, 2000
Kline, 2000
• RR Corn – USA
Reduction of 0.9 kg ai/ha (33%) in 2000
Doane, 2000
• BT Corn – USA
Reduction of 0.4 million ha sprayed in 1999
Reduction of 4.5 million kg (ai) from 1997 to 2009
Gianessi,2001
Kline, 2000
(HT: herbicide-tolerant; RR: Roundup-Ready (glyphosate-tolerant);
BT: Bacillus thuringiensis, insect-protected)
WORLDWIDE REDUCTION IN PESTICIDE USE
FROM BIOTECH CROPS
kg formulated product/ha
Estimations for the year 2000
0
-1.5
-2.9
7
-6.6
BT
cotton
-6.0
HT
canola
Total estimated reduction:
22 million kg of
formulated product
-5.3
HT
cotton
HT
soybeans
HT
maize
BT: Bacillus thuringensis,
insect-protected
HT: herbicide-tolerant
Source: Phipps. R.H., and Park, J.R. (2002). Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: Global and European
Perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences. Vol. 11(1) 1:18
WORLDWIDE REDUCTION IN PESTICIDE USE
FROM BIOTECH CROPS
kg formulated product/ha
Estimations for the year 2000
0
-1.5
-2.9
7
-6.6
BT
cotton
-6.0
HT
canola
= 558 x
-5.3
HT
cotton
Total estimated reduction:
22 million kg of
formulated product
HT
soybeans
HT
maize
40 ton truck
Source: Phipps. R.H., and Park, J.R. (2002). Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: Global and European
Perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences. Vol. 11(1) 1:18
POTENTIAL PESTICIDE REDUCTION IN THE EU
Reductions assuming 50% biotech crops in the EU (for 2000)
kg formulated product/ha
4
- 37%
Total estimated reduction:
15 million kg
formulated product
(over 4 million kg ai)
3
- 38%
- 43%
2
- 65%
Conventional
1
Biotech
0
HT
beet
BT
cotton
HT
maize
HT
canola
BT: Bacillus thuringensis,
insect-protected
HT: herbicide-tolerant
Source: Phipps. R.H., and Park, J.R. 2002. Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: Global and European
Perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences. Vol. 11(1) 1:18
POTENTIAL PESTICIDE REDUCTION IN THE EU
Reductions assuming 50% biotech crops in the EU (for 2000)
kg formulated product/ha
4
- 37%
Total estimated reduction:
15 million kg
formulated product
(over 4 million kg ai)
3
- 38%
- 43%
2
- 65%
1
= 362 x
0
HT
beet
BT
cotton
HT
maize
HT
canola
40 ton truck
Source: Phipps. R.H., and Park, J.R. 2002. Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: Global and European
Perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences. Vol. 11(1) 1:18
GM COTTON WORLDWIDE
Changes in pesticide use patterns since the introduction of
Bt & RR cotton:
• BT Cotton – USA
Reduction of 1.2 million kg (ai) in 1999
Reduction of 1.1 million kg (ai) in 1998
Reduction of 1.4 million kg (ai) in 2009
Carpenter, 2001
Benedict, 2000
Kline, 2000
• BT Cotton – Argentina
Reduction of 2.4 applications (64%)
in 2000
Elena, 2001
• BT Cotton – China
Reduction of 60-80% volume in 1998
Reduction of 70% (ai/ha) in 1999/00
Xia, 1999
Huang, 2001
• RR Cotton – USA
Reduction of 1.8 million kg (ai) in 2000
Gianessi, 2002
(BT: Bacillus thuringensis, insect-protected; RR: Roundup-Ready (glyphosate-tolerant))
BT COTTON IN THE US
3.5
Bollgard (BT)
cotton
introduced
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
0.0
1986
No. of applications per year
Average number of insecticide treatments for Tobacco Budworm,
Cotton Bollworm and Pink Bollworm across 16 States in the US
Source: Carpenter & Gianessi (2001). Agricultural biotechnology: updated benefits estimate. Report from the National
Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington DC (USA)
BT COTTON IN CHINA
Cotton pesticide input costs, Northern China (1999)
Susceptible
variety
2000
Input costs (RMB*/ha)
1800
Var. 9418
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
33B
200
SGK
321
GK12
Other
Non-BT
Bollworm
resistant
variety
0
BT cotton varieties
Cotton variety
Conventional cotton varieties
Source: Pray et al. (2001). Impact of Bt cotton in China. World Development 29 (5).
(* One US$ = 8.3 RMB)
BT COTTON IN SOUTH AFRICA
Cotton treatment in the Makhatini Flats of KwaZulu-Natal
7.5
8
7
6.0
6
5
BT: Bacillus
3.7
thuringensis,
3.3
4
insect-protected
3
2
1
0
BT
Non-BT
Average number of sprays
for the season
BT
Non-BT
Total liters of
pesticide used
Source: Stewart et al. (2001). Makhatini Flats cotton: final report. Report of the DRA Development cc.
RR SOYBEANS IN THE US
Herbicide active ingredient
(million kg)
Soybean herbicide use in the US
14
12.7
11.8
12
7.71
10
8
4.99
6
4
2
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
Since the introduction of Roundup Ready glyphosate tolerant soybeans in 1996,
the use of soybean herbicides with EPA groundwater advisory labeling has been
reduced by 60% or 7.7 million kg of herbicide active ingredient.
Source: Doane Market Research. Herbicides used in soybeans with ground water advisory labeling include
acifluorfen, alachlor, bentazon, dimethenamid, metolachlor, s-metolachlor, metribuzin, flumetsulam, and fomesafen.
RR SUGARBEET IN EUROPE
Herbicide use
(million kg active ingredient/year)
Estimated reductions in herbicide use (for 2000)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Germany
Current
situation
France
56% mean market
penetration of RR beet
in the 6 countries
UK
NL
Spain
84% mean market
penetration of RR beet
in the 6 countries
Belgium
100% market
penetration of RR beet
in the 6 countries
Source: B. Coyette et al. Environmental benefits of Roundup Ready sugar beet. In preparation
PESTICIDE REDUCTION IS PART OF A BROAD
PLATFORM OF BENEFITS
Benefits for
the farmer
Benefits for
the consumer
Biotech
crop
Benefits for the
environment
SOME EXAMPLES OF BENEFITS
Benefits for
the farmer
Benefits for
the environment
Benefits for
the consumer
• Increased yields, savings in production cost, savings
in energy
• User-friendliness, improvement in time and work
management, applicator safety
• Improved biodiversity, improved water quality, wildlife
protection, protection of beneficial arthropods, reduced
packaging waste
• Facilitate adoption of conservation agriculture practices,
representing an opportunity for more sustainable farming
methods
• Improved food quality: less mycotoxins
ARTHROPOD BIODIVERSITY
Arthropod numbers in different cultivation systems
Nº captured arthropods
150
a
125
100
75
50
RR corn in no
tillage &
glyphosate
postemergence
application
25
0
A
b
RR corn in no
tillage & preemergence
herbicides
application
b
Conventional
corn in
conventional
tillage & preemergence
herbicides
application
B
Soil arthropods are favoured
when RR corn and no till
management are combined
Source: Ruiz et al. (2001). I World Congress on Conservation Agriculture
C
FUNGAL MYCOTOXINS IN CORN
Corn cob with Fusarium infestation
(b)
European Corn
Borer (a)
&
Pink Stem
Borer (b)
in a corn stalk
(a)
•
Under adverse climatic conditions, fungi of the Fusarium family can infest corn plants.
Damage caused by tunnel-boring larvae of insects such as the European Corn Borer or the
Pink Stem Borer facilitates fungal infestations.
•
Fusarium sometimes produce potent toxins known as mycotoxins. Their toxicity to
animals are well known, their effects on humans is increasingly investigated.
•
In Europe, current regulations cover mainly aflatoxins. Regulation may soon be extended
to cover other mycotoxins (for example fumonisins).
Fumonisin concentrations
in grain
Number of pest larvae
per plant
7000
1.2
µg fumonisin/kg grain
Number of larvae per plant
BT CORN AND FUNGAL MYCOTOXINS
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
European
corn borer
Sesamia
Unprotected corn
Insecticide-treated corn
Bt corn
Source: Monsanto studies
5000
3000
1000
0
France
(20 trials)
Italy
(36 trials)
Spain
(2 trials)
Bt corn plants protect themselves against insect attacks:
Less insects => less fungi
=> lower probability of mycotoxin production
Reduced Pesticide Use with Insect-Protected Cotton
Insect Control Ledger for 2000: Conventional Insecticides versus Bollgard® Cotton on Five Million Acres
Manufacturing
Conventional
Cotton
Distribution
Application
Financial Benefit Stewardship
Consumer
Benefit
Calibration
Bollgard®
Cotton
Net
l
Saves 1.57 million
kilograms of raw
material
l
Conserves 5.60
million liters of fuel
oil
l
Eliminates 0.98
million kilograms
of industrial waste
Dr. Roger Leonard, LSU Agricultural Center
Dr. Ronald Smith, Auburn University
l
l
Transports and
stores 1,574,560
fewer liters of
insecticide
Conserves
2,286,140 liters
of fuel oil
l
l
Applies 0.47 million
fewer kilograms of
insecticide in 2.5 fewer
applications per acre
Disposes of 416,000
fewer insecticide
containers
l
Saves 41,250
10-hour farm
work days
l
Eliminates 2,150
10-hour days of aerial
application
l
Conserves 9.12 million
kilograms of fuel and
355 million kilograms of
water
l
Accrues
$168 million
in economic
benefits from
lower production
costs and
increased
cotton yield
l
Reduces pesticide
exposure risk
l
Preserves
beneficial insect
populations
l
Creates wildlife
benefits
l
Gives cotton
producers more
time for family
and community
activities
l
Gives cotton
producers peace
of mind
l
Produces fiber
equivalent to that
found in all
consumer
products derived
from cotton
BT COTTON IN THE MAKHATINI FLATS OF SOUTH AFRICA
« Treatment of our cotton cultures used to cost
200 € per season. With Bollgard cotton, we now have to invest
only 20 € per season »
« Today, we still go to the field but we have time for other things
as well. Our living standards have considerably increased. We
now have money to send our children to school »
Nhlela Phinias Gumede,
Cotton farmer from the Makhatini Flats, South Africa
(Agribex Fair, February 2002 in Brussels, Belgium)
CONCLUSIONS
These slides provide a convincing body of evidence
as to the environmental and other benefits of
agricultural biotechnology wherever it is used
The projected benefits for Europe will obviously not
materialize as long as the technology is not
available to European farmers