Published this year in the journal of GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain, a study by researchers Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot analyze the economic effects of genetically modified (GM) crop technology use from sites across the world. Based on data compiled over the last twenty years, the authors conclude that by using GM technology, farmers across the globe have increased crop production and increased their income. 

Though GM crops and technologies are commonplace these days, many struggle to define what exactly a GM crop is. I’ll help you out: genetically modified crop technology is the genetic manipulation of seeds and plants to enhance certain traits, making them grow more efficiently. For example, in Brookes and Barfoot’s research, one strain of GM crops that are measured and analyzed for global production efficiency is herbicide tolerant (HT) crops. These HT crops enable farmers to use herbicides that kill ‘weeds’ (undesired plants that take resources away from the main crop) without harming the crop itself. Barfood and Brookes’ research conclude that these HT crops have reduced costs for farmers and helped them to grow more food using fewer resources by reducing the damage from pests and weeds.

The study takes into account some key variables such as costs of production, gross income, and yields, focusing on soybean, corn, cotton, and canola production globally. The authors of this meta-study claim that farmers have derived significant economic benefits globally since the adaptation of GM biotechnology amounting to $18.9 billion in 2018 alone, and $225.1 billion between 1996 and 2018. Their research discovered that for every dollar invested in GM crop seeds, there resulted in an average gain of $3.24 return in industrialized countries and a $4.41 return in developing countries. These figures all support Brooks and Barfoot’s conclusion that GM crop usage has globally positive economic impacts. 

The problem is that they never explain who is reaping the majority of the profits from the sales of GM seeds. So, how can the researchers conclude farmers are the major recipients of benefits from GM technology without disclosing to whom these profits are going? Interestingly, a closer look at some of the data sourced to inform Barfoot and Brookes’ research reveals a potential source of bias and fallibility, even though the authors do not report any conflicts of interest. Brooks and Barfoot’s research draws on data developed by the global GM icon Monsanto-Beyer in their locations of Monsanto Mexico, Monsanto Australia, and Monsanto Argentina. 

The study fails to distinguish income between small producers and industrial producers where profit margins are the most stark. The study also does not specify what portion of returns are cycled back into the cost of buying new inputs each season. Since GM seeds are manufactured to be sterile (non – reproducing) and require inputs, GM farmers must reinvest their income into the monopoly of GM seeds, ensuring a cycle of dependency on GM seed companies. This cost of replacement seeds and inputs such as pesticides, herbicides, and plant supplements may offset the ‘increased profit’ that Barfoot and Brookes find in their study. Conveniently enough, the additional inputs are also manufactured by the same companies dispensing GM seeds, notably, Monsanto-Bayer.

Seed Industry Structure 1996 – 2013. Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and BASF collectively own or partially-own hundreds of formerly-independent seed companies. Chemical company Monsanto holds overwhelming seed monopolies, dominating global seed market shares.

Monsanto – Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, and BASF, have dominated the global seed market, monopolizing farmers’ (and consumers) options for produce and have funneled these profits through capitalist schemes – leaving little income for the farmers themselves. Pictured above, Monsanto-Bayer is the largest player in the global seed market, and the company’s profit margins have seen a whopping increase, totaling 141% and growing – a figure that Brookes and Barfoot fail to explore in their research. 

Companies owned by Monsanto – Bayer. 

Are Barfoot and Brookes really attempting to lead us to believe this corporate takeover has been beneficial for small producers? These neat, manipulated calculations actually work to divert global attention and opinion about GM seeds in favor of these large corporations, crushing the voices and autonomy of small producers. GM seeds are not to the benefit of global food producers as these seeds have reduced plant diversity, demolished local seed trade networks, encouraged monocropping and use of chemical additives (leading to adverse environmental effects such as chemical run – off, contamination of drinking water), diminished soil quality long term, and reduced local knowledge of foods, farming, and seeds. GM seeds have put many small producers and seed traders out of business by disproportionately reducing crop prices causing inflation in global markets and then buying out smaller producers – resulting in Monsanto – Bayer and other crony capitalists domination of the market, as shown in the above graphics.

Though the authors of this study boast about booming agricultural production, GM crop production has not aided global hunger. The United Nations reported that hunger is on the rise for the third consecutive year and began to slowly increase again in 2015 to now. More, GM seeds are not a sustainable solution for small farmers or communities in need of food security due to the recurrent input costs, lack of climate resilience, damage to local environments, and lack of cultural appropriateness. 

Let’s also address the fact that there is a global excess of produce. This is an issue of distribution, not one of production. Contrary to Brooks and Barfoot’s opinions, a mass increase in crop production is not to the benefit of the world. In fact, overproduction of crops depresses international market prices of crops, creating severe problems for developing countries whose economies are based on agriculture. The majority of countries whose workforce is primarily employed in agriculture are located in developing countries; thus, creating a disproportionate net negative effect on the long-term economic growth and stability of farming economies and jobs.

What Monsanto – Bayer and their crew of GM competitors do not want you to know is that farmers using local and heritage seed varieties can feed hundreds of families off the exact same area of land as GM seeds. Locals using their own seed and techniques enable communities to build sustainable food systems and eventually become food sovereign (in control of their own culturally appropriate food production). Methods of local food production simultaneously support crop variety, biodiversity, climate resilience, historical ownership, resistance to financial flight, nutrition, and many more truly positive outcomes. 

Though Brooks and Barfoot’s rosy economic analyses may be impressive on face value, the real cost of GM crops in our global community is more than just economic. The global adaptation of GM crops has privileged private interests and empowered industrial agriculture while damaging small producers, Indigenous peoples, and cultural heritage in the long run.