IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pae/wpaper/06-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Insect Resistance Management Plans: The Farmer's Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Corinne Alexander

    () (Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Purdue University)

Abstract

One of the most successful genetically modified crops is Bt corn, which has been modified to produce proteins from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). These proteins are toxic to specific pests such as the European Corn Borer (ECB) and the corn rootworm (CRW). These Bt crops are highly effective at preventing insect damage, and as a result have been rapidly adopted since the release of Bt corn resistant to ECB in 1996 and Bt corn resistant to CRW in 2003. In 2005, Bt corn accounted for 35 percent of the corn acreage in the US either as a single trait or stack trait (NASS, 2005). The rapid adoption of Bt corn, particularly in specific regions of the US, has raised concerns about the development of insect resistance to Bt. Insect resistance to Bt poses a major risk to the producers currently benefiting from the technology and to other producers who depend on Bt as a pesticide, such as organic producers. In order reduce the risk of insect resistance to Bt, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued insect resistance management (IRM) guidelines in 2001 (EPA, 2001). Registrants of Bt crops are responsible for overseeing IRM plans and they implement them by having producers sign legally binding agreements. Under the IRM guidelines, producers in the primary corn growing regions are required to plant at least 20 percent of their corn to a refuge, i.e. non-Bt corn. Currently, there are four approved refuge configurations: the border of the field, a block within the field, splitting the planter so that there are strips through the field, or an adjacent field which is required to be across a ditch or road for CRW corn and within half a mile for ECB corn. Producers are permitted to treat the refuge corn with a non-Bt insecticide. The effectiveness of refuges at preventing insect resistance depends in part on producers’ compliance with the IRM plan regulations. Producers who are found to be not incompliance with the IRM plans for two years will face the penalty of no longer being allowed to purchase Bt crops (Wright and Hunt, 2004). IRM guidelines have been in effect for about 5 years. The EPA will review the IRM regulations related to CRW corn in 2006 when the registration of CRW corn needs to be renewed. In anticipation of these policy discussions about IRM plans, the purpose of this paper is to present survey and focus group results that describe farmers’ thoughts on and reactions to IRM plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Corinne Alexander, 2006. "Insect Resistance Management Plans: The Farmer's Perspective," Working Papers 06-01, Purdue University, College of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:pae:wpaper:06-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/28626/1/sp060001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Frisvold, George, 2010. "Resistance Management and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biotechnology," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188091, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    insect resistance; BT corn; ECB; CRW; IRM guidelines;

    JEL classification:

    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pae:wpaper:06-01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Debby Weber). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dapurus.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.