Regulatory System Impacts on Global GM Crop Adoption Patterns

Savannah Gleim1, Stuart Smyth1, and Peter Phillips2

1 Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, University of Saskatchewan, Canada2 Johnson-Shoyama School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, Canada

Paper prepared for presentation at the 19th ICABR Conference“IMPACTS OF THE BIOECONOMY ON AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY,

THE ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH”June 17, 2015

Agenda

• Problem & Objective• Data• Results• Analysis & Conclusion

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 2

Objective

Examine the global regulatory approval patterns to determine trends of GM crop

commodities and traits.

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 3

Methodolgy

• International Service for the Acquistition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) GMO database

• GMO prevalent crops: maize/corn, soybeans, canola, and cotton

• Compare corn approvals by type of approval, events, countries, and traits

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 4

Data

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 5

Crop Number of events approved

Events approved for

Food Feed Cultivation

Canola 32 32 30 22

Cotton 54 44 42 45

Corn 138 133 123 90

Soybean 30 28 26 28

TOTAL 254 237 221 185

Table 1: Approval of GM Events, 1995-2014

Source: ISAAA 2015

Figure 1: Aggregated GM corn approvals, year & typeSource: ISAAA 2015

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 6

35

Results

Figure 2: Yearly approvals for all corn eventsSource: ISAAA 2015

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 7

Figure 3: Corn event approvals by yearSource: ISAAA 2015

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 8

Saturation or New Innovation ?

• Commercial GM traits• Approving nations• Leaders and followers

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 9

Figure 4: Single and stacked GM corn trait approvalsSource: ISAAA 2015

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 10

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tota

l App

rova

ls

Single Stacked

Figure 5: Stacked GM corn trait approvalSource: ISAAA 2015

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 11

Figure 6: Country approval from 1995-2004Source: ISAAA 2015

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 12

Figure 7: Country approval from 2005-2014Source: ISAAA 2015

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 13

Figure 8: Country approval from 1995-2014Source: ISAAA 2015

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 14

Figure 9: Country approval by eventSource: ISAAA 2015

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 15

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90

Year

of A

ppro

val

EventsArgentina Australia Brazil Canada Chile ChinaColumbia Egypt EU Honduras Japan PanamaParaguay Phillippines United States South Africa Uruguay Vietnam

Figure 10: Diffusion of regulatory knowledge for GM corn varietiesSource: ISAAA 2015

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 16

Figure 11: Diffusion of regulatory knowledge for GM corn varietiesSource: ISAAA 2015

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 17

Analysis

• Disconnect between trade approvals• Strong HTIR approvals• Technology diffusion outpaces science-

based risk assessment• National approval constraint: sharing

problem or regulatory competition

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 18

Conclusion

• No clear corn trends• Inefficient GM event regulations• Delaying benefit gains

• Klümper and Qaim’s (2014) meta-analysis of GM crops quantified a 22% yield increase for GM adopters

• Current regulation augments food insecurity

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 19

Thank you!

Savannah Gleim, M.Sc.-Research Assistant

Department of Bioresource Policy, Business & Economics, College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of SaskatchewanPhone 00-1-306-966-4043E-mail savannah.gleim@gmail.comInternet www.saifood.caTwitter @SavannahGleim

Gleim, Smyth & Phillips 2015 20