who benefits from gm crops? environmental, social and economic impacts

The report argues that GM crops, particularly herbicide-tolerant varieties, have not increased yields and have instead led to an increase in pesticide use due to the emergence of resistant 'superweeds'. It highlights the monopolization of the seed market by a few agrochemical giants, specifically Monsanto, and documents negative socio-economic impacts on small farmers in India, South Africa, and South America, including increased debt and land displacement.

• GM crops have not delivered the promised yield increases; independent studies show yields are often lower than or equivalent to conventional crops, with Roundup Ready soy specifically showing a yield loss of 5-10%.
• The adoption of Roundup Ready crops has led to a dramatic increase in pesticide use, with glyphosate use in major US crops multiplying by more than 15 times between 1994 and 2005.
• The overuse of a single herbicide has created an epidemic of resistant weeds, such as Palmer amaranth in the US and Johnsongrass in Argentina, forcing farmers to use more toxic chemicals like 2,4-D and atrazine.
• The global seed market is highly concentrated, with four agrochemical companies—Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta, and Bayer—controlling 41% of the commercial seed market as of 2006.
• Seed prices in the US have risen sharply since the mid-1990s, with the average cost for cotton seeds increasing tenfold between 1975 and 2006.
• In India, the adoption of Bt cotton has not improved the livelihoods of small farmers and is associated with a continuing rise in farmer suicides in regions like Vidarbha due to debt.
• In Brazil, the expansion of GM soy has been linked to the contamination of organic and conventional crops, as well as violent conflicts, including the killing of an MST member by Syngenta's armed militia.
• In Paraguay, the expansion of GM soy monocultures has coincided with an increase in extreme rural poverty, with the population living below the poverty threshold rising from 33.9% in 2000 to 39.2% in 2005.
• The European Union remains largely resistant to GM crops, with less than 2% of the total maize area in the EU being transgenic, and several member states maintaining national bans.
• The report concludes that GM crops primarily benefit large-scale industrial farmers through a 'convenience effect' (reduced labor) and the biotech corporations themselves, rather than providing food security for the poor.

APA

Villar, J. L., & Freese, B. (2008). who benefits from gm crops? environmental, social and economic impacts. Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/foei-who-benefits-2008-esp-full.pdf

Chicago

Villar, Juan López, and Bill Freese. who benefits from gm crops? environmental, social and economic impacts. Friends of the Earth International, 2008. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/foei-who-benefits-2008-esp-full.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Villar |first1=Juan López |last2=Freese |first2=Bill |title=who benefits from gm crops? environmental, social and economic impacts |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |date=January 2008 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/foei-who-benefits-2008-esp-full.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{villar2008who, author = {Villar, Juan López and Freese, Bill}, title = {{who benefits from gm crops? environmental, social and economic impacts}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2008}, month = jan, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/foei-who-benefits-2008-esp-full.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }