GENETICALLY MODIFIED

ORGANISM
IMPACT ON ECONOMY

REPORTER: NOVELYN G. AGRUDA

ALPHA MAY E. MAWIRAT
INSTRUCTOR: AUREA FELICIANO
WHAT IS A GMO?

• Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms whose genetic material has been
artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering. This creates combinations of
plant, animal, bacteria, and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding
methods.

• Most GMOs have been engineered to withstand the direct application of herbicide and/or to produce
an insecticide. However, new technologies are now being used to artificially develop other traits in
plants, such as a resistance to browning in apples, and to create new organisms using synthetic biology.
Despite biotech industry promises, there is no evidence that any of the GMOs currently on the market
offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.
ARE GMOS SAFE?

• In the absence of credible independent long-term feeding

studies, the safety of GMOs is unknown. Increasingly, citizens
are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt
out of the GMO experiment.
HOW MIGHT GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
ORGANISMS AFFECT THE ECONOMY?

• It is a well-known result in economics that, in the perfectly

competitive market of agriculture, the higher profits earned
by farmers in the short run will eventually pass to consumers,
causing farmers to make less money in the long run.
Problems also arise with the ecological impact of genetically
modified crops.
WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS
OF GMOS?

• GMOs help protect the environment by allowing farmers to

produce more crops, using less resources, which ultimately
reduces agriculture's impact on habitat destruction, while
also conserving soil, water and energy.
 EXAMPLES OF USES FOR GENETICALLY
MODIFIED ORGANISMS?

• In addition to foods, GMOs are also widely used in scientific

research and pharmaceuticals. Organisms that have been
genetically modified include micro-organisms such as
bacteria and yeast, insects, plants, fish, and mammals
• The first issue regarding ecological impact of genetically modified foods is
responsibility. Both the scientists who develop the genetically modified
varieties and the corporations that market them must act with prudence
and caution. This requires genetic engineers to consider ecological issues;
as Mcloughlin says, "biotechnology and agro ecological approaches are
synergistic". In addition, the corporations that fund the development and
marketing of the genetic modifications must also act in a trustworthy
fashion. If they ignore signs of trouble, irreversible damage may be done
to the environment.
• Genetically modified crops may have a number of impacts on the
environment. Among these is the issue of sustainability, i.e. how long can
one do something before it does not work anymore. For example, the use
of a single pesticide is generally not sustainable because insects will
develop resistance to it in the long run.
• Many proponents of genetically modified crops assert that they are more
sustainable than the traditional methods of agriculture (Mcloughlin 171).
In particular, genetically modified crops allegedly decrease pesticide
usage. Both the USDA report on Adoption of Bioengineered Crops and the
 The extensive systematic map will address the broad review question: what are the
socio-economic impacts of genetically modified crops worldwide?
FARM-LEVEL IMPACTS

• Farmers have different socio-economic motivations for adopting

GM crops. Significant socio-economic determinants include:
gender associated aspects individual and social learning
educational level and expected benefits and uncertainty. 
•  Farmers’ production efficiency (farmers’ ability to produce more
with less than or equal inputs/resources) would also be affected,
as well as the frequency of pesticide poisoning incidents and
health impacts.
THIS CONCEPTUAL MODEL SHOWS THAT SOCIO-
ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCE FARMER DECISIONS
REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF GM CROPS
• GM adoption is expected to impact aspects related to farmers’ income and also intangible aspects.
• The potential income-related impacts include changes in the use of inputs; associated costs;
output (quantity and quality); and gross income.
• Some farmers could experience changes in time available for conducting off-farm income-
generating activities.
• A farm’s efficiency could deteriorate or improve with use of new technologies impacting the
farmer’s income.
• Intangible aspects that may be affected after GM adoption relate to health safety issues
associated with changes in pesticide use and farmers’ nutritional status if they cultivate and
consume bio-fortified crops.
• Primary social, ethical, and cultural aspects are also depicted in the conceptual model.
COEXISTENCE RELATED IMPACTS

• The possibility that GM farms contaminate non-GM farms via

unintentional or inadvertent gene flow constitutes a
challenge for the coexistence of GM farming and
conventional agriculture, including organic certified
agricultural systems.
• Several studies have analyzed the effects that the
introduction of ex-ante regulatory and ex-post liability
aspects would have on farm-level costs and GM spatial
configuration and adoption dynamics.
WHAT ARE THE REAL ECONOMIC AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF GM CROP USE?

• This comprehensive paper, which is the ninth annual report on the global
economic and environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops, provides
insights into the reasons why so many farmers around the world have adopted
crop biotechnology and continue to use it in their production systems since the
technology first became available on a widespread commercial basis, in the mid-
1990s. 
• The paper draws, and is largely based, on the considerable body of peer-reviewed
literature available that has examined the economic and other reasons behind
farm-level crop biotechnology adoption, together with the environmental impacts
associated with the changes. 
GM CROP USE CONTINUES TO
BENEFIT THE ENVIRONMENT AND
FARMERS
• Crop biotechnology continues to provide major environmental benefits and allow
farmers to grow more, using fewer resources. A majority of these benefits are in
developing countries.
• “‘In the 17th year of widespread adoption, crops developed through genetic
modification delivered more environmentally friendly farming practices while
providing clear improvements to farmer productivity and income,’ said Graham
Brookes, director of PG Economics, co-author of the report. ‘Half of the farm
income gains and the majority of the environmental gains associated with
changes in pesticide use and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions occurred in
developing countries.’” 
• Crop biotechnology has contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas
emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon
storage from reduced tillage with GM crops. In 2012, this was equivalent to removing 27 billion
kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 11.9 million cars from the road
for one year; 
• Crop biotechnology has reduced pesticide spraying (1996–2012) by 503 million kg (-8.8%). This
is equal to the total amount of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the EU 27
for nearly two crop years. As a result, this has decreased the environmental impact associated
with herbicide and insecticide use on the area planted to biotech crops by 18.7%.
• The insect-resistant (IR) technology used in cotton and corn has consistently delivered yield
gains from reduced pest damage. The average yield gains over the 1996–2012 period across all
users of this technology has been +10.4% for insect-resistant corn and +16.1% for insect-
resistant cotton; 
• The herbicide-tolerant (HT) technology used in soybeans and canola has also contributed to
increased production in some countries by helping farmers in Argentina grow a crop of
soybeans after wheat in the same growing season, through higher yields and improved weed
control;
•  Between 1996 and 2012, crop biotechnology was responsible for an additional 122 million
tonnes of soybeans and 231 million tonnes of corn. The technology has also contributed an
extra 18.2 million tonnes of cotton lint and 6.6 million tonnes of canola;
• GM crops are allowing farmers to grow more without using additional land. If crop biotechnology had not
been available to the (17.3 million) farmers using the technology in 2012, maintaining global production
levels at the 2012 levels would have required additional plantings of 4.9 million ha of soybeans, 6.9 million
ha of corn, 3.1 million ha of cotton and 0.2 million ha of canola. This total area requirement is equivalent to
9% of the arable land in the U.S., or 24% of the arable land in Brazil, or 27% of the cereal area in the EU
(28); 
• Crop biotechnology helps farmers earn reasonable incomes for their work. The net economic benefit at the
farm level in 2012 was $18.8 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $117/hectare. For the 17-
year period (1996-2012), the global farm income gain has been $116.6 billion; 
• The highest-yield gains were obtained by farmers in developing countries, many of which are resource-poor
and farm small plots of land; 
• The total farm income gain of $116.6 billion was divided equally between farmers in developing and
developed countries; 
• Crop biotechnology continues to be a good investment for farmers around the world. The cost farmers paid
for accessing crop biotechnology in 2012 ($5.6 billion[3][4] payable to the seed supply chain) was equal to
23% of the total gains (a total of $24.4 billion inclusive of the $18.8 billion income gains). Globally, farmers
received an average of $3.33 for each dollar invested in GM crop seeds; 
• Farmers in developing countries received $3.74 for each dollar invested in GM crop seeds in 2012 (the cost
being equal to 21% of total technology gains), while farmers in developed countries received $3.04 for
each dollar invested in GM crop seed (the cost being equal to 25% of the total technology gains). The
higher share of total technology gains realized by farmers in developing countries relative to farmers in
developed countries mainly reflects weaker provision and enforcement of intellectual property rights,
coupled with higher average levels of benefits in developing countries. 
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES –
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

• Food is one of the most important necessities for humans; we eat to live
and at least most people are blesses with a meal a day, while some
others can afford three or more.
• The improvement of plants and livestock for food production and the use
of different conservation techniques have been in practice as long as
humankind stopped migrating relying on agriculture for survival. With the
quest to grow more and better food to meet the demand of our fast
growing world population, genetic engineering of crops has become a
new platform in addition to plant breeding.
GM FOOD AND HUMAN HEALTH

• Food choice is influenced by a large number of factors, including social and

cultural factors. One method for trying to understand the impact of these factors
is through the study of attitudes. Research is described which utilizes social
psychological attitude models of attitude-behaviour relationships, in particular
the Theory of Planned Behaviour. This approach has shown good prediction of
behaviour, but there are a number of possible extensions to this basic model
which might improve its utility.
•  One such extension is the inclusion of measures of moral concern, which have
been found to be important both for the choice of genetically-modified foods and
also for foods to be eaten by
GM FOOD AND ENVIRONMENT

• Genetic modification and “biosafety” are concepts that have not been well understood by, or
accessible to, the non-geneticists working in the fields of conservation science, law, administration
and management, and in the scientific, legal, administrative and management aspects of
sustainable use.
• Genetically modified (GM) plants represent a potential benefit for environmentally friendly
agriculture and human health. Although, poor knowledge is available on the potential hazards
posed by unintended modifications occurring during genetic manipulation processes, the
increasing amount of reports on ecological risks and benefits of GM plants stresses the need for
experimental works aimed at evaluating the impact of GM crops on the natural and agro-
ecosystems. One of the major environmental risks associated with GM crops include their potential
impact on non-target soil microorganisms which plays a fundamental role in crop residues
degradation and in biogeochemical cycles (Giovannetti, Sbrana, & Turrini, 2005).
GM FOOD AND ECONOMIC ISSUES

• Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agro-biotechnological
companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Thus many new plant genetic
engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of
agribusiness.
• Although, genetically modified (GM) plants represent a potential benefit for environmentally friendly
agriculture and human health, poor knowledge is available on the potential hazards posed by unintended
modifications occurring during genetic manipulation. The major economic fears are the risk of patent
enforcement which may oblige farmers to depend on giant engineering companies such as Monsanto for
strains when their crops are cross pollinated. Consumer advocates are equally worried that patenting
these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries
will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It
is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and non-profits will follow the lead of the
Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at reduced costs to impoverished nations.
WHY GMO FOOD ARE BEING PROMOTED
• Despite its academic-sounding name and affiliation with an Ivy League
Institution, the Cornell Alliance for Science is a public relations campaign
to promote genetically engineered foods and pesticides. With 
$12 million in funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the
Cornell Alliance for Science claims to be working to “restore the
importance of scientific evidence in decision-making,” however, the
examples in this fact sheet show that the group:
• Misleads the public with inaccurate information about science;
• Elevates unreliable messengers who make false and unscientific claims;
and,
• Partners with front groups that have worked with the tobacco industry or
chemical industries to manufacture doubt about science that raises
health concerns.
• The evidence suggests the Cornell Alliance for Science is using Cornell’s
WHY GMO FOOD ARE BEING PROMOTED

• The Gates Foundation helped launch the Cornell Alliance for Science in 2014 as an
effort to “depolarize the charged debate” around genetically modified foods (GMOs).
The Gates Foundation Deputy Director Rob Horsch, who worked for Monsanto Company
for 25 years, leads the foundation’s agricultural research and development strategies,
which have drawn criticism for relentlessly promoting GMOs and agrichemicals in Africa
over the opposition of Africa-based groups and social movements, and despite 
many concerns and doubts about genetically engineered crops across Africa.1  In
December 2018, a group of African farmers accused Cornell Alliance for Science of
using their images without authorization to make false and misleading claims, 
according to the African Centre for Biodiversity.
WHY GMO FOOD ARE BEING PROMOTED

• Genetically modified (GM) foods for human consumption have long been a
subject of intense public debate, as well as academic research.
• Despite the lack of scientific evidence to suggest GM foods are less safe than
conventional foods, previous studies have shown that consumers are reluctant
to fully embrace them and are wary about the technology that produces them.
• In our upcoming article in the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, we show
that consumers’ attitudes toward GM foods, their willingness to purchase them
and the price they are willing to pay could be significantly improved if GM
products had a direct benefit to them personally.
IMPACT OF ECONOMY OF MEDICINE AND
HEALTH
1.Alzheimer’s disease, economic costs, health economics
- Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients suffer progressive cognitive, behavioral and functional
impairment which result in a heavy burden to patients, families, and the public-health
system. AD entails both direct and indirect costs. Indirect costs (such as loss or reduction of
income by the patient or family members) are the most important costs in early and
community-dwelling AD patients. Direct costs (such as medical treatment or social services)
increase when the disorder progresses, and the patient is institutionalized or a formal
caregiver is required. Drug therapies represent an increase in direct cost but can reduce
some other direct or indirect costs involved. Several studies have projected overall savings
to society when using drug therapies and all relevant cost are considered, where results
depend on specific patient and care setting characteristics. Dementia should be the focus of
analysis when public health policies are being devised. South American countries should
strengthen their policy and planning capabilities by gathering more local evidence about the
burden of AD and how it can be shaped by treatment options .
IMPACT OF ECONOMY OF MEDICINE AND
HEALTH
2. Socio-economic impact of mHealth An assessment report for the European Union
-Potential of mHealth To address these challenges, EU healthcare systems are moving
care for chronic conditions and ageing population from hospitals to community homes.
There is an increasing focus on making care more patient-centric so that patients can
be empowered to manage their care. With mobile technologies becoming pervasive
across the continent, mobile solutions are beginning to support these new healthcare
delivery solutions. These mHealth solutions can influence patient behaviour to
improve lifestyles, enable remote treatment of chronic conditions and equip
healthcare providers to make better clinical decisions. As a result, patients can stay
healthier and resources can be better utilised, whilst also limiting the demand for
healthcare and lowering the costs of care.
EFFECT OF BT-CORN OF HEALTH
1. Bt Corn: Health and the Environment
• Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a soil bacterium that produces insecticidal
toxins.
• Genes from Bt can be inserted into crop plants to make them capable of
producing an insecticidal toxin and therefore resistant to certain pests.
• There are no known adverse human health effects associated with Bt
corn.
• Bt corn can adversely affect non-target insects if they are closely
related to the target pest, as is the case with Monarch butterfly. These
adverse effects are considered minor, relative to those associated with
the alternative of blanket insecticide applications.
EFFECT OF BT-CORN OF HEALTH
Bt Corn: Health and the Environment
• New technology allows us to improve crop varieties by adding genes from other
species. This is useful because we can alter traits, such as insect resistance, that
might not naturally exist in the crop species, or that might be difficult to transfer
within the crop species using classical plant breeding techniques. One successful
application of this new technology is the development of corn hybrids that are
resistant to certain insect pests because of the addition of a gene from a natural soil
bacterium.
• Although these corn hybrids are highly effective in controlling insect pests, their use
has raised concerns. The following series of questions and answers provides an
overview of these insect-resistant corn hybrids and addresses some of the health and
environmental issues associated with their use. Fact sheet 0.708, 
Managing Corn Pests with Bt Corn addresses the use of these hybrids in pest
management.
EFFECT OF BT-CORN OF HEALTH
1. Possible health impacts of Bt toxins and residues from spraying with
complementary herbicides in genetically engineered soybeans and risk
assessment as performed by the European Food Safety Authority EFSA
- MON89788 was the first genetically engineered soybean worldwide to
express a Bt toxin. Under the brand name Intacta, Monsanto subsequently
engineered a stacked trait soybean using MON89788 and MON87701—this
stacked soybean expresses an insecticidal toxin and is, in addition, tolerant
to glyphosate. After undergoing risk assessment by the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA), the stacked event was authorised for import into
the EU in June 2012, including for use in food and feed. This review
discusses the health risks associated with Bt toxins present in these
genetically engineered plants and the residues left from spraying with the
complementary herbicide.
EFFECT OF BT-CORN OF HEALTH
• Bt maize has revolutionized pest control and many farmers have
benefited, but some people remain skeptical of this new technology.
• Most people are familiar with the hungry caterpillar in the vegetable
garden or the elusive beetle in the pantry, and contending with these
unwelcomed pests is a longstanding problem. Ever since humans
started farming they have shared part of their harvest with insects.
Growers of maize, Zea mays (corn), are challenged with a number of
pests, but the most important are lepidopteran larvae (i.e.,
caterpillars) that are stalk borers, ear or leaf feeders,
and coleopteran larvae (i.e., beetle grubs) that feed on roots. 
EFFECT OF BT-CORN OF HEALTH

Human Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Crops

• Endogenous Toxins in Plants- Most chemicals of primary
metabolism (for example, those involved in the formation of
carbohydrates, proteins, fats, and nucleic acids) are shared
between animals and plants and are therefore unlikely to be toxic.
Perceived risks associated with alterations of plant compounds
arise mainly from alterations of plant-specific molecules, popularly
known as plant natural products and technically named secondary
metabolites.
THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING