Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Awareness of Renewable Energy Resources on Sustainable Production in Dairy Farming: The Case of Konya Province (Turkey)
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing Building Sustainability: Integrating User Behaviour and Solar Orientation in the Thermal Performance of Houses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 19
10.3390/su16198350
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Strategic Adoption of Genetically Modified Crops in Lebanon: A Comprehensive Cost–Benefit Analysis and Implementation Framework

by
Richard J. Roberts
1 and
Viviane Naimy
2,*
1
New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA 01938, USA
2
Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Notre Dame University–Louaize, Zouk Mosbeh P.O. Box 72, Lebanon
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(19), 8350; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198350
Submission received: 19 August 2024 / Revised: 19 September 2024 / Accepted: 24 September 2024 / Published: 25 September 2024
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper investigates the economic feasibility and benefits of introducing genetically modified (GM) crops into Lebanon’s agricultural sector. The methodology combines a rigorous cost–benefit analysis with qualitative insights from local farmers and agricultural scientists to ensure relevance to Lebanon’s unique agricultural context. Through this study, we identified tomatoes and potatoes as the most suitable crops for GM implementation. The findings indicate that GM tomatoes could increase net income by USD 10,000 per hectare in the short term and USD 50,000 over five years. These economic benefits are primarily driven by higher yields and reduced pesticide costs. This study emphasizes the necessity of a holistic approach, including financial support, infrastructure development, farmer education, and robust market access strategies, to maximize the potential of GM crops. This research provides a strategic framework for leveraging GM technology to address Lebanon’s agricultural challenges, promoting sustainable practices, enhancing food security, and ensuring long-term economic stability. By integrating local context and stakeholder perspectives, this paper offers a unique and actionable pathway for successful GM crop implementation in Lebanon.

1. Introduction

Lebanon’s agriculture sector is beset by a confluence of problems. Foremost among these is the severe poverty affecting over half of farming households. According to recent reports by the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), the headcount poverty rate in Lebanon surged from 28% in 2019 to 55% in 2020 [1]. Specifically, in rural areas where agriculture is the primary livelihood, the poverty rate is even higher. Over 80% of the rural population experiences multidimensional poverty, indicating deprivation in health, education, and living standards. This poverty is a stark indicator of the sector’s underlying issues, including limited access to modern agricultural inputs like high-quality seeds and advanced germplasm. Small landholdings further constrain farmers’ productivity and income, while the lack of access to affordable credit hampers investments in essential technologies and infrastructure.
Water scarcity remains a pressing concern despite Lebanon’s relatively high rainfall. Inefficient water management systems prevent the optimal use of this vital resource, hindering irrigation and other agricultural needs [2]. Additionally, many farmers continue to use traditional farming methods that are outdated and inefficient, further limiting their productivity.
The agricultural landscape in Lebanon is a vital component of the nation’s economy and social fabric, contributing significantly to the livelihood of its rural population. Agriculture in Lebanon dates back millennia, shaped by the country’s varied climate and diverse topography, which support a wide range of crops. However, the sector faces significant challenges that impede its growth and sustainability, exacerbating poverty rates among farmers. Government efforts to modernize agriculture have included subsidies for new equipment and the development of storage and transportation facilities. However, these initiatives have been limited in scope and effectiveness, further hampered by the severe economic crisis that began in 2019. This crisis, one of the worst economic downturns globally in the past 150 years, has drastically reduced the government’s capacity to support the agricultural sector [3]. The resulting rise in food prices, driven by the economic downturn and dependency on imports, has compounded the challenges of meeting the nutritional needs of the population.
To address these challenges, substantial and innovative efforts are required. One promising solution is the integration of genetically modified (GM) technology into Lebanese agriculture. GM technology offers the potential to significantly enhance crop resilience, increase yields, and improve nutritional quality by incorporating beneficial genes and removing undesirable ones [4]. GM technology can incorporate traits that make crops more resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses, such as pests, diseases, drought, and extreme weather conditions. For example, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops, which express a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, are resistant to certain pests, significantly reducing crop losses and the need for chemical pesticides. This is achieved by expressing the gene for a pesticide by the plant itself—a trait that is commonly found naturally in plants. Additionally, GM crops like drought-tolerant maize have been developed to withstand periods of low water availability, ensuring stable yields under adverse environmental conditions. The adoption of GM crops has been shown to increase agricultural productivity by improving plant efficiency and reducing losses [5]. Studies have demonstrated that GM crops can achieve higher yields compared to conventional varieties. For instance, GM soybeans and maize in Argentina have led to yield increases of 10–20% due to enhanced resistance to pests and improved tolerance to herbicides [6]. Similarly, in India, Bt cotton has resulted in yield gains of up to 50%, significantly boosting the income of smallholder farmers [7].
This technological advancement has proven effective in numerous countries and could play a pivotal role in transforming Lebanon’s agricultural sector. For instance, Roberts and Naimy conducted a pioneering study that assessed the impact of GMOs on poverty reduction and agricultural development in Lebanon [8]. Their research focused on the apple agriculture sector in the Mount Lebanon region, particularly the Sannine-Baskinta area. By simulating various scenarios of GMO adoption, they found that a 70% adoption rate could reduce poverty rates from 55% to 36%. This significant reduction highlights the transformative potential of GMOs in addressing food security and economic challenges.
Building on the insights from Roberts and Naimy’s work, this paper will explore the associated costs of introducing GMOs in Lebanon and identify the most suitable crops for GM implementation. By focusing on cost analysis and crop selection, we aim to provide a comprehensive framework for leveraging GM technology to effectively address Lebanon’s agricultural challenges. Our approach will consider the economic feasibility, potential yield improvements, and broader socio-economic impacts of GM crop adoption, aiming to develop strategies that promote sustainable agricultural practices, enhance food security, and contribute to poverty alleviation and long-term economic stability in Lebanon. By combining stakeholder interviews with economic analysis, this paper will be the first to develop an evidence-based strategy for GM crop implementation in Lebanon, providing a solid foundation for future agricultural development initiatives in the country.
This paper is structured to provide a comprehensive analysis of the economic feasibility and potential benefits of adopting genetically modified (GM) crops in Lebanon. Section 2 highlights the benefits and challenges associated with GMOs, setting the stage for understanding their implications in the Lebanese context. Section 3 details a multifaceted methodology involving interviews with farmers, agricultural scientists, and technical experts from regions like Mount Lebanon and Bekaa Valley, aiming to gather insights into the specific needs and challenges of the agricultural community. This section collects and analyzes data on current crop yields, production costs, pest and disease prevalence, and market prices and explains the process of selecting the most suitable crops for GM implementation. Section 4 is devoted to creating detailed cost–benefit models to assess both short-term and long-term financial impacts of the selected GM crops. It also evaluates potential yield improvements, reductions in pesticide use, and broader socio-economic benefits such as enhanced food security and poverty alleviation. Section 5 interprets these findings in the context of the literature and stakeholder insights, addressing necessary support mechanisms like subsidies, infrastructure development, training, market access, and regulatory frameworks. Finally, Section 6 summarizes key findings, offers strategic recommendations for GM crop adoption in Lebanon, and suggests future research directions on long-term impacts and other potential GM crops.

2. Review of the Literature

Numerous studies provide a robust framework for understanding the benefits and challenges associated with GMOs, which can inform their adoption in Lebanon.
The economic feasibility of GM crops has been extensively documented, demonstrating significant yield improvements and cost reductions across various agricultural contexts. In a seminal study, Qaim and Zilberman (2003) analyzed the impact of Bt cotton in India, revealing a 50% increase in yield and a 60% reduction in pesticide use. This led to a break-even period of 1–2 years, underscoring the rapid return on investment that can be achieved with GM technology [9]. The break-even period refers to the time it takes for the initial investment in GM technology to be recovered through the increased revenue and cost savings generated by higher yields and reduced input costs. Similar results were observed in China, where Pray et al. (2001) found that Bt cotton increased yields by 24% and reduced pesticide usage by 78%, achieving break-even within one year [10].
In addition to cotton, other GM crops have also shown substantial economic benefits. Gouse et al. (2006) studied Bt maize in South Africa and reported an 11% increase in yield and a 10% reduction in insecticide costs. The economic gains from these improvements were especially significant for smallholder farmers, who experienced enhanced productivity and profitability [11]. In the United States, Carpenter and Gianessi (2001) documented that Bt corn resulted in a 7–12% yield increase and significant reductions in mycotoxin contamination, leading to considerable financial savings [12].
While the benefits of GMOs, such as increased yields and reduced pesticide use, are well-documented, it is important to consider the challenges that accompany their adoption [13]. One key consideration is the need to ensure that GM crops are managed in a way that minimizes any potential environmental impact, such as the effects on non-target species, including beneficial insects. Additionally, while gene flow from GM crops to wild relatives has been a concern, ongoing research and improved management practices are helping to mitigate these risks. The long-term effects of GM food consumption are continuously studied, and so far, extensive research has supported their safety, though continued monitoring is essential. Economically, while GM crops can lead to higher profitability over time, the initial costs of GM seeds and the associated reliance on seed companies can pose financial challenges for smallholder farmers, particularly in regions where access to credit and financial support is limited.
Beyond staple crops, GM technology has been successfully applied to fruits and vegetables, also yielding promising results. Gómez-Barbero et al. (2008) found that GM tomatoes in Spain increased yields by 15% and reduced pesticide costs by 50%, with a break-even period of 1–2 years [14]. In Mexico, Traxler et al. (2001) reported a 20% yield increase for GM tomatoes, along with a 60% reduction in pesticide use, achieving break-even within two years [15]. Similarly, GM apples in the USA showed yield increases of 10–15% and a 40% reduction in pesticide costs, with a break-even period of 3–4 years [16]
The introduction of GM crops has also been associated with broader socio-economic benefits beyond yield improvements and cost reductions. According to Brookes (2022), GM technology has considerably boosted farm income through increased productivity and efficiency gains [16]. In 2020, GM crops generated a direct global farm income benefit of USD 18.8 billion, equating to a 5.9% increase in the value of global production of soybeans, maize, canola, and cotton. Since 1996, this has resulted in a cumulative increase in farm incomes of USD 261.3 billion. These income benefits are primarily driven by higher yields and lower production costs, which have allowed farmers to invest in better technologies and improve their overall standard of living. Notably, the benefits are substantial for small farmers, who often experience more pronounced gains due to the relative scale of their operations. For instance, a study by Qaim and de Janvry (2005) found that smallholder cotton farmers experienced yield gains of 34% and a 69% reduction in pesticide costs, significantly boosting their net incomes [17]. Additionally, the reduction in pesticide use associated with GM crops has led to environmental benefits, including decreased pesticide runoff and improved biodiversity, further supporting sustainable agricultural practices. For instance, a study by Klümper and Qaim (2014) found that GM crops reduced pesticide use by 37% on average, leading to a significant decrease in pesticide-related environmental damage [18]. Furthermore, research by Brookes and Barfoot (2020) highlighted that the global reduction in pesticide use due to GM crops from 1996 to 2016 was estimated to be 671.2 million kg of active ingredient, contributing to a substantial reduction in the environmental footprint of agriculture [5].
Table 1 outlines the initial costs, long-term benefits, and break-even analysis for GM seeds in various countries. It illustrates how different countries have experienced significant benefits from GM crops, often achieving break-even within a few years due to increased yields and reduced input costs. These examples can serve as a benchmark for assessing the potential economic feasibility of introducing GMOs in Lebanon.
The environmental benefits of reduced pesticide use extend to improved water quality. Pesticide runoff into water bodies is a major cause of water pollution, affecting aquatic life and human health. By reducing the need for pesticides, GM crops help mitigate this issue, promoting cleaner water sources. Additionally, a decreased reliance on chemical pesticides allows beneficial insects and other non-target species to thrive, enhancing biodiversity. This is supported by a study conducted by Romeis et al. (2006), which found that fields with GM crops had higher populations of beneficial insects compared to conventional fields treated with pesticides. These environmental advantages underscore the role of GM technology in advancing sustainable agriculture and highlight its potential to contribute to long-term ecological balance and agricultural productivity [21]. Another study by Pellegrino et al. (2018) reviewed 21 years of data on Bt maize in Europe and found that GM maize significantly reduced the prevalence of target pests, which in turn reduced the need for chemical insecticides. This led to improved biodiversity, particularly among non-target insect populations and soil organisms [22,23].
On the other hand, the adoption of GM crops has had a positive impact on food security by increasing the availability and stability of food supplies. For instance, Bt corn’s resistance to pests has led to more reliable harvests, reducing the risk of crop failures and ensuring a steady supply of food [24]. Recent studies continue to support these findings, highlighting the role of GM crops in improving food security. For example, a study by ISAAA (2018) reported that the adoption of GM crops has prevented significant crop losses due to pests and diseases, thus ensuring a more stable food supply [25]. Additionally, research by Areal et al. (2013) demonstrated that GM rice, engineered for enhanced resistance to bacterial blight, resulted in higher yields and more consistent production in field trials across multiple Asian countries [26]. Moreover, the adoption of drought-tolerant GM maize in Sub-Saharan Africa has been shown to mitigate the impacts of climate change on agriculture, providing a buffer against food shortages during dry spells [27].
This stability is particularly crucial for regions prone to agricultural challenges, such as Lebanon. By incorporating GM technology, Lebanon can enhance its agricultural resilience, ensuring that its food supply remains stable despite environmental and economic pressures. This, in turn, can contribute to poverty alleviation by securing livelihoods and improving nutrition for vulnerable populations.

3. Methodology: Selection of Crops for GM Implementation in Lebanon

A total of 20 interviews were conducted with key stakeholders, including technical experts, agricultural scientists, and prominent farmers from various regions in Lebanon, such as Mount Lebanon and the Bekaa. Of the 20 interviewees, 11 were the same farmers who participated in the earlier study conducted by Roberts and Naimy (2023), allowing for continuity and a deeper understanding of the evolving agricultural challenges they face [8]. This group consisted of eight smallholder farmers, whose experiences align with the focus of this study on the feasibility of GM crops for small-scale operations, and three prominent farmers managing larger agricultural operations, providing insights into how GM crop adoption might differ across farm scales.
The remaining nine interviewees were technical experts and agricultural scientists, who offered valuable perspectives on the broader implications of GM crop implementation, particularly regarding pest management, disease control, and environmental sustainability. This diverse set of interviews allowed for a well-rounded assessment of the specific agricultural challenges and opportunities present in Lebanon’s agricultural sector. Table 2 presents an overview of the empirical data gathered, highlighting crop performance, pest and disease prevalence, and the potential benefits of GM crop implementation for key crops in Lebanon, including tomatoes, potatoes, cucumbers, apples, and maize.
To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the figures used in the cost–benefit model, a multi-step data collection and verification process was employed. The primary data were gathered through structured interviews with farmers across two main agricultural regions in Lebanon: Mount Lebanon and the Bekaa. These regions were selected to capture variations in agricultural conditions, practices, and economic circumstances. Mount Lebanon is characterized by its mountainous terrain and smaller-scale, traditional farming methods, whereas Bekaa Valley offers a more expansive, fertile landscape, conducive to large-scale commercial agriculture.
Each farmer provided detailed information on crop yields, input costs, and the economic challenges they face. These data were cross-referenced with insights from expert consultations, which included agricultural economists, agronomists, and extension workers. These experts provided broader context on the economic viability of GM crops in Lebanon, offering additional data points for comparison and validation.
Notes on data sources:
  • Crop performance indicators: Derived from agricultural production reports ([23,55]) and local farmer interviews.
  • Pest and disease prevalence: Based on surveys conducted by agricultural extension services (Unifert SAL) and research institutions in Lebanon (Lebanese Agricultural Research Institute (LARI)).
  • Impact on yield: Estimated from empirical studies and expert consultations.
  • Current pest control methods: Reported by farmers during interviews and supported by agricultural extension service records.
  • Potential GM benefits: Inferred from international case studies and the literature on GM crop performance.
There are five main crops that can be considered potentially relevant for improving the income level of smallholder Lebanese farmers, as illustrated in Table 2.
  • Tomatoes
Tomatoes hold a prominent place in Lebanon’s agricultural landscape, serving as a cornerstone of both local consumption and export markets, particularly to countries in the Middle East. The economic importance of tomatoes is underscored by their widespread cultivation and significant contribution to the livelihoods of Lebanese farmers. However, tomato crops are particularly vulnerable to pests such as the tomato leaf miner and various fungal diseases, which lead to considerable yield losses of up to 50% and necessitate extensive use of chemical pesticides. Fusarium wilt is particularly devastating as it can completely kill tomato plants and cannot be controlled by pesticides, making it a critical issue for tomato farmers. Implementing GM tomatoes engineered for pest and disease resistance could mitigate these challenges, reducing crop losses and reliance on harmful pesticides. Studies such as those conducted by Gómez-Barbero et al. (2008) in Spain [14] and Traxler et al. (2001) in Mexico [15] have demonstrated that GM tomatoes can lead to yield increases of 15–20% and a reduction in pesticide use of 50–60%. These improvements would enhance food security and boost farmer income in Lebanon, making tomatoes a compelling choice for GM technology adoption.
2.
Potatoes
Potatoes are a crucial crop in Bekaa and Akkar, exhibiting yields of 23–30 tons per hectare. They also present a strong case for GM implementation in Lebanon. As another vital crop, potatoes are crucial for both domestic consumption and export, playing a significant role in the Lebanese diet and agriculture. Potato crops, however, are highly susceptible to pests like the Colorado potato beetle and diseases such as late blight, which result in yield losses up to 50% and necessitate heavy pesticide use. GM potatoes engineered for pest and disease resistance can address these issues, enhancing crop reliability and reducing pesticide dependency. Research by Brookes and Barfoot (2020) in the USA [5] has shown that GM potatoes can lead to yield increases of 15–20% and a 50% reduction in pesticide costs, which would significantly improve food security and farmer profitability in Lebanon. The high costs associated with chemical pesticides and the impact on tuber quality underscore the advantages of adopting GM potatoes to improve resistance and reduce production costs.
3.
Cucumbers
In Mount Lebanon and Bekaa, cucumbers have an average yield of 30–35 tons per hectare. Pests like cucumber beetles and diseases such as powdery mildew result in yield losses up to 40%, directly impacting revenue and increasing the need for chemical pesticides. Implementing GM cucumbers could enhance pest resistance and reduce the financial burden on farmers.
4.
Apples
In Mount Lebanon and the North, apples face yield challenges from pests like the codling moth and diseases such as apple scab, resulting in yield losses up to 30%. These issues lead to increased production costs due to frequent pesticide use and reduced marketable fruit quality. GM apples with improved resistance could mitigate these challenges, enhancing both yield and revenue.
5.
Maize
In the Bekaa and South Lebanon regions, maize gives yields of 3–7 tons per hectare, affected by pests like the corn earworm and diseases such as maize dwarf mosaic virus, leading to yield losses up to 20%. The reliance on chemical pesticides increases production costs, highlighting the potential benefits of GM maize in improving pest resistance and reducing costs.
In considering the implementation of GM crops in Lebanon, tomatoes and potatoes emerge as strategic choices due to their economic significance, susceptibility to pests and diseases, potential for yield improvement, environmental benefits, consumer acceptance, and proven success in other regions. By incorporating local expertise and scientific evidence, we can ensure that the chosen crops align with the needs and capabilities of Lebanese farmers, while also addressing broader agricultural sustainability goals.

4. Cost–Benefit Model for the Introduction of GM Tomatoes in Lebanon

The cost–benefit model employed in this study is designed to assess both the short-term and long-term financial viability of introducing GM tomatoes in Lebanon. It includes key economic variables such as seed costs, yield increases, pesticide savings, and net income over a five-year period. The model takes into account the initial investment required for GM seeds and contrasts it with the projected economic benefits from increased productivity and reduced input costs, such as pesticides and herbicides. The financial outcomes are based on empirical data from previous studies and localized agricultural conditions in Lebanon. The model provides a comprehensive financial projection that helps inform decision-making for policymakers and farmers alike. The long-term financial impact is further analyzed by extrapolating the annual benefits observed in the first year across a five-year horizon.
The model incorporates empirical data on crop performance, pest and disease prevalence, and economic viability, as detailed in Table 2. The data provided in the cost–benefit model are based on data that are specifically tailored to the local conditions in Lebanon, reflecting realistic scenarios and considering potential risks and uncertainties.
Table 3 presents the long-term financial impact of GM tomatoes over a five-year period. The long-term financial impact was calculated by projecting the annual yield increases and cost savings observed in the short-term analysis across a five-year horizon, while also accounting for the consistent yield improvements and stable market conditions.
Explanation of key parameters:
The cost of purchasing GM seeds is generally higher than non-GM seeds due to the technology involved in developing GM traits. For instance, in the analysis, the initial seed cost for GM tomatoes is USD 400 per hectare compared to USD 200 for non-GM tomatoes. The USD 400 estimate for GM seeds has been provided by the authors based on many inquiries and is subject to some margin of error to account for potential variations.
Production cost includes all expenses related to cultivation, such as labor, fertilizers, water, and other inputs. GM crops may incur slightly higher initial costs due to the adoption of new practices. The production cost for GM tomatoes is USD 7000 per hectare, slightly higher than the USD 6600 per hectare for non-GM tomatoes, reflecting the need for new cultivation techniques such as precision farming and advanced soil management practices. The USD 7000 estimate has been provided by the authors based on many inquiries and is subject to some margin of error to account for potential variations.
The expected increase in yield is due to GM technology’s enhanced resistance to pests and diseases. In our analysis, GM tomatoes yield 40 tons per hectare compared to 30 tons for non-GM tomatoes, illustrating the yield improvements provided by GM technology.
Revenue is calculated based on the market price per kg of the crop multiplied by the yield. We have been very conservative in using the current selling price without considering potential future price increases. For example, with a market price of USD 1 per kg for tomatoes, the revenue per hectare for GM tomatoes is USD 40,000, whereas for non-GM tomatoes, it is USD 30,000.
GM crops often require fewer pesticides due to their built-in resistance, leading to cost savings. In our analysis, the pesticide cost for GM tomatoes is USD 400 per hectare-complete pest resistance is not achievable in the short run- compared to USD 1000 for non-GM tomatoes, reflecting significant cost savings.
The total cost per hectare for both GM and non-GM tomatoes is calculated by adding the initial seed cost, production cost, and pesticide cost. For instance, the total cost for GM tomatoes is USD 7800 per hectare (USD 400 initial seed cost + USD 7000 production cost + USD 400 pesticide cost).
Using the conservative revenue estimates, the net income per hectare for GM tomatoes is USD 32,200 compared to USD 22,200 for non-GM tomatoes.
The cost–benefit models depicted in Table 3 and Table 4 for GM tomatoes demonstrate significant financial benefits when compared to their non-GM counterparts. The model shows substantial increases in net income both in the short term and long term.

5. Results and Discussion

The financial analysis of GM tomatoes demonstrates the substantial economic benefits that could be realized through their adoption in Lebanon. The cost–benefit model indicates that GM tomatoes have the potential to increase net income by USD 10,000 per hectare in the short term and by USD 50,000 over a five-year period. These economic benefits are primarily driven by higher yields (40 tons per hectare for GM tomatoes compared to 30 tons per hectare for non-GM tomatoes) and reduced pesticide costs (USD 400 per hectare for GM tomatoes compared to USD 1000 per hectare for non-GM tomatoes).
The insights gained from interviews with Lebanese farmers, agricultural experts, and scientists further support the findings of the cost–benefit analysis. Smallholder farmers, who constituted the majority of our interview sample, highlighted key challenges, such as the high initial costs of GM seeds and limited access to credit, which align with the economic constraints identified in the model. These challenges were particularly relevant for farmers in regions like the Bekaa, where financial constraints limit the ability to invest in GM technology. However, the interviews also revealed optimism about the potential benefits of GM crops, particularly the reduction in pesticide use and improved yields, which were confirmed by the cost–benefit analysis. Farmers indicated that increased profitability could make GM crop adoption financially viable in the long term, provided there is sufficient financial and technical support.
The interviews with agricultural scientists echoed these findings but also provided a deeper perspective on the environmental and regulatory challenges. Scientists emphasized the importance of biodiversity preservation and the need for careful management of gene flow to avoid potential environmental risks. They also highlighted that regulatory frameworks in Lebanon need to be developed further to ensure safe and effective GM crop adoption. These insights are critical when interpreting the results of the cost–benefit analysis, as the model assumes stable environmental conditions. The feedback from scientists also suggests that while the economic projections in the model are promising, success will depend on addressing these broader environmental and regulatory factors.
To maximize these benefits, addressing several key areas is essential to ensure optimal implementation and sustainability. One of the critical enablers for the adoption of GM crops is the provision of subsidies and financial support. Small- and medium-scale farmers often face significant financial constraints that limit their ability to invest in new technologies. Previous studies, such as those conducted in India and Brazil, have shown that government subsidies can significantly enhance the adoption rate of GM crops by reducing the financial burden on farmers [9]. Financial institutions should also be encouraged to offer favorable loan terms and credit facilities tailored to the needs of farmers transitioning to GM crops. This support can reduce the financial burden on farmers and encourage widespread adoption of GM technology.
Infrastructure development is another vital component for the successful implementation of GM crops. Efficient irrigation systems, adequate storage facilities, and reliable transportation networks are essential to optimize the benefits of increased yields and reducing post-harvest losses. Investment in modern infrastructure can help farmers maintain the quality of their produce and access markets more efficiently. Experiences from Argentina and South Africa have highlighted the importance of infrastructure in supporting agricultural productivity and market access [5]. Developing infrastructure such as research laboratories and testing facilities can ensure the continuous improvement and monitoring of GM crop performance, thereby maintaining high standards and addressing any emerging challenges.
The transition to GM crops requires a comprehensive education and training program for farmers, agricultural technicians, and extension workers. Providing education on the benefits and management of GM crops can dispel myths and misconceptions, fostering acceptance and confidence among stakeholders [56]. Training programs should focus on best practices for GM crop cultivation, integrated pest management, and sustainable farming techniques. Similar training initiatives in countries like China and the Philippines have proven effective in enhancing farmer knowledge and increasing GM crop adoption rates [24]. These programs can be delivered through workshops, field demonstrations, and extension services, ensuring that farmers are well-equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to optimize their production.
Ensuring market access and fair pricing for GM crops is also crucial for realizing their economic potential. The government and private sector should work together to develop market linkages that connect farmers with local and Middle Eastern markets. Cooperatives and farmer associations can enhance bargaining power, improve market access, and ensure fair pricing for produce. Experiences from the USA and Canada have shown that well-structured market systems can significantly benefit GM crop producers [57].
A robust policy and regulatory framework are essential for the successful integration of GM crops into Lebanon’s agricultural sector. Policies should be developed to support the research, development, and commercialization of GM crops, ensuring that they are aligned with international standards and best practices [58].
As mentioned earlier, the reduction in pesticide use associated with GM crops can lead to environmental benefits, including improved biodiversity and soil health. Many studies have documented these environmental benefits, highlighting the positive impact of reduced chemical inputs ([59,60,61,62]). Socially, the increased productivity and income from GM crops can enhance the livelihoods of rural communities, contributing to poverty alleviation and social stability.
Despite the significant economic benefits offered by GMOs, there are several challenges that farmers face universally and in Lebanon in particular. One of the primary concerns is the high initial cost of GM seeds, which can be a significant barrier for smallholder farmers in Lebanon who already face financial constraints and have limited access to affordable credit or subsidies. Furthermore, the commercial availability of GM seeds is often controlled by large multinational corporations, raising concerns about farmers’ economic dependence on these companies, as patented GM seeds cannot typically be saved for future planting, adding financial pressure. Environmental risks also pose challenges, such as potential gene flow to wild relatives or non-target organisms, which could impact biodiversity. Resistance to pests over time may necessitate increased pesticide use, negating one of the key benefits of GM technology. In Lebanon, where ecological balance and biodiversity are critical, these environmental risks require careful consideration. Additionally, the regulatory landscape for GM crops in Lebanon is still developing, and both market and consumer acceptance remain uncertain, which could slow adoption. Public perceptions of GMOs, domestically and internationally, are crucial in shaping market demand. Lebanon’s agricultural sector, already vulnerable to fluctuating markets, may face challenges due to this uncertainty. The country’s limited agricultural infrastructure, such as irrigation systems, combined with a lack of education and training for farmers, may further inhibit the successful adoption of GM crops. Lastly, there is the risk that GM crop adoption could exacerbate social and economic inequality, as larger and wealthier farmers are more likely to afford the high initial costs and reap disproportionate benefits, leaving smallholder farmers at a disadvantage. These challenges highlight the need for a balanced approach to GM crop adoption, ensuring that both the benefits and the difficulties are adequately addressed, particularly in regions like Lebanon that are prone to agricultural challenges.

6. Conclusions

This paper has explored the economic feasibility and potential benefits of introducing GM crops, specifically tomatoes, into Lebanon’s agricultural sector. The results from the cost–benefit analysis demonstrated substantial financial advantages, with GM tomatoes having the potential to increase net income by USD 10,000 per hectare in the short term and up to USD 50,000 over a five-year period. These economic benefits stem from increased yields and lower input costs, making GM tomatoes a promising solution for boosting agricultural profitability. Additionally, potatoes have been identified as another crop suitable for GM implementation, offering similar potential financial benefits.
However, the insights gained from interviews with farmers and agricultural scientists indicate that realizing these economic benefits will require addressing several key challenges. Farmers, especially smallholders, expressed concerns over the high initial costs of GM seeds and limited access to financial support, highlighting the need for subsidies or credit programs. Scientists emphasized the need for robust regulatory frameworks to address environmental concerns, such as biodiversity preservation and the management of gene flow, both critical to the long-term success of GM crop adoption in Lebanon.
Achieving these benefits requires a multifaceted approach that extends beyond the mere adoption of GM seeds. Key areas to address include providing subsidies and financial support to reduce the initial investment burden on farmers, developing infrastructure to support efficient production and market access, and implementing comprehensive education and training programs to equip farmers with the necessary knowledge and skills. In addition, a thorough consideration of environmental and social factors is crucial, as GM crop adoption may have wider impacts on local ecosystems and rural communities. The increased productivity and income from GM crops can enhance rural livelihoods, contributing to poverty alleviation and social stability, but only if the risks are carefully managed.
Moving forward, further research should focus on the long-term environmental impacts of GM crop adoption in Lebanon, as well as the socio-economic effects on smallholder farmers. Additionally, pilot projects and field trials should be conducted to gather local data and refine the cost–benefit models, ensuring they accurately reflect the Lebanese context. Exploring other GM crops relevant to Lebanon’s agricultural sector could offer additional avenues for enhancing productivity and resilience.
By addressing these challenges and building on the insights gained from this study, Lebanon can pave the way for a more sustainable and prosperous agricultural future, leveraging the potential of GM technology to overcome current challenges, achieve long-term economic stability, stimulate rural development, and reduce poverty.

Author Contributions

Methodology, V.N.; Validation, R.J.R.; Investigation, V.N.; Writing—original draft, V.N.; Writing—review & editing, R.J.R.; Supervision, R.J.R.; Project administration, V.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors express their gratitude for the support and funding provided by New England Biolabs, located at 240 County Road, Ipswich, MA, USA.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. ESCWA. Multidimensional Poverty in Lebanon (2019–2021); ESCWA: Beirut, Lebanon, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Shaban, A.; Awad, M.; Ghandour, A.J.; Telesca, L. A 32-year aridity analysis: A tool for better understanding on water resources management in Lebanon. Acta Geophys. 2019, 67, 1179–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Naimy, V.; Obegi, R. Lebanon-Economy. Routledge, Taylor & Francis LTD. Edited by Europa Publications. 2023. Available online: https://www.routledge.com/The-Middle-East-and-North-Africa-2023/Publications/p/book/9781032273778 (accessed on 20 March 2023).
  4. Roberts, R.J. The Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs. J. Innov. Knowl. 2018, 3, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Brookes, G.; Barfoot, P. Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2018: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crop. Food 2020, 11, 215–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Otegui, M.E.; Riglos, M.; Mercau, J.L. Genetically modified maize hybrids and delayed sowing reduced drought effects across a rainfall gradient in temperate Argentina. J. Exp. Bot. 2021, 72, 5180–5188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Patowary, R. Scrutinizing the Impact of GMOs Through the Prism of Human Rights. India Law EJournal 2014, 7, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  8. Roberts, R.J.; Naimy, V. Overcoming Agricultural Challenges with GMOs as a Catalyst for Poverty Reduction and Sustainability in Lebanon. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Qaim, M.; Zilberman, D. Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries. Science 2003, 299, 900–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pray, C.; Ma, D.; Huang, J.; Qiao, F. Impact of Bt Cotton in China. World Dev. 2001, 29, 813–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gouse, M.; Piesse, J.; Thirtle, C.G. Monsanto’s Adventures in Zulu Land: Output and Labour Effects of GM Maize and Minimum Tillage. In Proceedings of the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 12–18 August 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Carpenter, J.E.; Gianessi, L.P. Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefit Estimates; National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fraiture, M.-A.; Herman, P.; Taverniers, I.; De Loose, M.; Deforce, D.; Roosens, N.H. Current and New Approaches in GMO Detection: Challenges and Solutions. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 392872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gómez-Barbero, M.; Berbel, J.; Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. Bt corn in Spain—The performance of the EU’s first GM crop. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26, 384–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Traxler, G.; Godoy-Avila, S.; Falck-Zepeda, J.; Espinoza-Arellano, J. Transgenic Cotton in Mexico: Economic and Environmental Impacts; AgBioForum: Portici, Italy, 2001; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  16. Brookes, G. Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use 1996–2020: Environmental Impacts Associated with Pesticide Use Change. GM Crop. Food 2022, 13, 262–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Qaim, M.; DE Janvry, A. Bt cotton and pesticide use in Argentina: Economic and environmental effects. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2005, 10, 179–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Klümper, W.; Qaim, M. A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Trigo, E.; Cap, E. The Impact of the Introduction of Transgenic Crops in Argentinean Agriculture; AgBioForum: Portici, Italy, 2003; Volume 6, pp. 87–94. [Google Scholar]
  20. Yorobe, J.M.; Quicoy, C.B. Economic impact of bt corn in the philippines. Philipp. Agric. Sci. 2006, 89, 258–267. [Google Scholar]
  21. Romeis, J.; Meissle, M.; Bigler, F. Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and biological control. Nat. Biotechnol. 2006, 24, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pellegrino, E.; Bedini, S.; Nuti, M.; Ercoli, L. Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: A meta-analysis of 21 years of field data. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 3113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. IDAL. Agriculture Sector in Lebanon; IDAL: Beirut, Lebanon, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  24. James, C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010; The International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA): New York, NY, USA, 2010; Volume 42. [Google Scholar]
  25. ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2018: Biotech Crops Continue to Help Meet the Challenges of Increased Population and Climate Change; ISAAA Brief 54; The International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA): Ithaca, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  26. Areal, F.J.; Riesgo, L.; Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: A meta-analysis. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 151, 7–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Beyene, Y.; Semagn, K.; Mugo, S.; Tarekegne, A.; Babu, R.; Meisel, B.; Sehabiague, P.; Makumbi, D.; Magorokosho, C.; Oikeh, S.; et al. Genetic Gains in Grain Yield through Genomic Selection in Eight Bi-parental Maize Populations under Drought Stress. Crop. Sci. 2015, 55, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mazumdar, P.; Singh, P.; Kethiravan, D.; Ramathani, I.; Ramakrishnan, N. Late blight in tomato: Insights into the pathogenesis of the aggressive pathogen Phytophthora infestans and future research priorities. Planta 2021, 253, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Talens, P.; Mora, L.; Bramley, P.M.; Fraser, P.D. Antioxidant compounds and their bioaccessibility in tomato fruit and puree obtained from a DETIOLATED-1 (DET-1) down-regulated genetically modified genotype. Food Chem. 2016, 213, 735–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ogden, A.J.; Boukari, W.; Nava, A.; Lucinda, N.; Sunter, G.; Curtis, W.R.; Adkins, J.N.; Polston, J.E. Characterization of Local and Systemic Impact of Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) Feeding and Whitefly-Transmitted Tomato Mottle Virus Infection on Tomato Leaves by Comprehensive Proteomics. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 7241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Bergougnoux, V. The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 170–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Gerszberg, A.; Hnatuszko-Konka, K.; Kowalczyk, T.; Kononowicz, A.K. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in the service of biotechnology. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. (PCTOC) 2015, 120, 881–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Schoville, S.D.; Chen, Y.H.; Andersson, M.N.; Benoit, J.B.; Bhandari, A.; Bowsher, J.H.; Brevik, K.; Cappelle, K.; Chen, M.-J.M.; Childers, A.K.; et al. A model species for agricultural pest genomics: The genome of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chiab, N.; Aoiadni, N.; Nouri-Ellouz, O.; Ghorbel-Koubaa, F.; Mellouli, M.; Sellami-Boudawara, T.; Kallel, C.; Makni-Ayadi, F.; Gargouri-Bouzid, R. Subacute toxicity studies of meals prepared from genetically modified potato overexpressing the StDREB1 or the VvWRKY2 transcription factor in rats. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 5883–5890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Radcliffe, E.B. Insect pests of potato. Annu. Rev. Èntomol. 1982, 27, 173–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pribylova, R.; Pavlik, I.; Bartos, M. Genetically modified potato plants in nutrition and prevention of diseases in humans and animals: A review. Vet. Med. 2006, 51, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xu, Y.; Gray, S.M. Aphids and their transmitted potato viruses: A continuous challenges in potato crops. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rhee, G.S.; Cho, D.H.; Won, Y.H.; Seok, J.H.; Kim, S.S.; Kwack, S.J.; Da Lee, R.; Chae, S.Y.; Kim, J.W.; Lee, B.M.; et al. Multigeneration Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Study of bar Gene Inserted into Genetically Modified Potato on Rats. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 2005, 68, 2263–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tek, M.I.; Calis, O. Mechanisms of resistance to powdery mildew in cucumber. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2022, 61, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liang, D.; Liu, M.; Hu, Q.; He, M.; Qi, X.; Xu, Q.; Zhou, F.; Chen, X. Identification of differentially expressed genes related to aphid resistance in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 9645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Yin, Z.; Pląder, W.; Wiśniewska, A.; Szwacka, M.; Malepszy, S. Transgenic cucumber—A current state. Folia Hortic. 2005, 17, 73–90. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lei, H.; Tjallingii, W.F.; van Lenteren, J.C. Probing and feeding characteristics of the greenhouse whitefly in association with host-plant acceptance and whitefly strains. Èntomol. Exp. Appl. 1998, 88, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Arthurs, S.; Lacey, L. Field evaluation of commercial formulations of the codling moth granulovirus: Persistence of activity and success of seasonal applications against natural infestations of codling moth in Pacific Northwest apple orchards. Biol. Control 2004, 31, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hong, Y.A.; Gallardo, R.K.; Fan, X.; Atallah, S.; Gómez, M.I. Phytosanitary Regulation of Washington Apple Producers under an Apple Maggot Quarantine Program. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2019, 44, 646–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kaye-Blake, W.; O’COnnell, A.; Lamb, C. Potential market segments for genetically modified food: Results from cluster analysis. Agribusiness 2007, 23, 567–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bevacqua, D.; Grechi, I.; Génard, M.; Lescourret, F. The consequences of aphid infestation on fruit production become evident in a multi-year perspective: Insights from a virtual experiment. Ecol. Model. 2016, 338, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Uzogara, S.G. The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century. Biotechnol. Adv. 2000, 18, 179–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bibb, J.L.; Cook, D.; Catchot, A.; Musser, F.; Stewart, S.D.; Leonard, B.R.; Buntin, G.D.; Kerns, D.; Allen, T.W.; Gore, J. Impact of Corn Earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Field Corn (Poales: Poaceae) Yield and Grain Quality. J. Econ. Èntomol. 2018, 111, 1249–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ala-Kokko, K.; Nalley, L.L.; Shew, A.M.; Tack, J.B.; Chaminuka, P.; Matlock, M.D.; D’HAese, M. Economic and ecosystem impacts of GM maize in South Africa. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 29, 100544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kumar, R.M.; Gadratagi, B.-G.; Paramesh, V.; Kumar, P.; Madivalar, Y.; Narayanappa, N.; Ullah, F. Sustainable Management of Invasive Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mueller, D.S.; Wise, K.A.; Sisson, A.J.; Allen, T.W.; Bergstrom, G.C.; Bosley, D.B.; Bradley, C.A.; Broders, K.D.; Byamukama, E.; Chilvers, M.I.; et al. Corn Yield Loss Estimates Due to Diseases in the United States and Ontario, Canada from 2012 to 2015. Plant Health Prog. 2016, 17, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chavas, J.; Shi, G.; Lauer, J. The Effects of GM Technology on Maize Yield. Crop. Sci. 2014, 54, 1331–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Al-Eryan, M.A.S.; El-Tabbakh, S.S. Forecasting yield of corn, Zea mays infested with corn leaf aphid, Rhopalosiphum maidis. J. Appl. Èntomol. 2004, 128, 312–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Xie, W.; Ali, T.; Cui, Q.; Huang, J. Economic impacts of commercializing insect-resistant GM maize in China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2017, 9, 340–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Agricultural Sector Review in Lebanon; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2021. [CrossRef]
  56. Roberts, R.J. “A Crime against Humanity”, Lindau Nobel Conference. 2015. Available online: https://mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/recordings/34686/richard-roberts-crime-humanity (accessed on 14 May 2023).
  57. Fernandez-Cornejo, J.; Wechsler, S. Revisiting the Impact of Bt Corn Adoption by U.S. Farmers. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2012, 41, 377–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sinebo, W.; Maredia, K. Innovative farmers and regulatory gatekeepers: Genetically modified crops regulation and adoption in developing countries. GM Crop. Food 2016, 7, 1151989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Smyth, S.J.; Kerr, W.A.; Phillips, P.W. Global economic, environmental and health benefits from GM crop adoption. Glob. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Smyth, S.J. The human health benefits from GM crops. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 887–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Racovita, M.; Obonyo, D.N.; Craig, W.; Ripandelli, D. What are the non-food impacts of GM crop cultivation on farmers’ health? Environ. Évid. 2014, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Qaim, M. The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2009, 1, 665–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Comparative table for cost–benefit analysis of GM seeds in different countries.
Table 1. Comparative table for cost–benefit analysis of GM seeds in different countries.
CountryGM CropInitial CostsLong-Term BenefitsBreak-Even AnalysisReference
IndiaBt Cotton- Seed costs: USD 15/acre- Yield increase: 50%- Break-even in 1–2 yearsQaim and Zilberman [9]
- Additional inputs: USD 10/acre- Pesticide reduction: 60%
ChinaBt Cotton- Seed costs: USD 24/acre- Yield increase: 24%- Break-even in 1 yearPray et al. [10]
- Additional inputs: USD 12/acre- Pesticide reduction: 78%
South AfricaBt Maize- Seed costs: USD 36/acre- Yield increase: 11%- Break-even in 1–2 yearsGouse et al. [11]
- Additional inputs: USD 15/acre- Reduction in insecticide costs: 10%
ArgentinaRR Soybeans- Seed costs: USD 40/acre- Yield increase: 10%- Break-even in 1–2 yearsTrigo and Cap [19]
- Additional inputs: USD 20/acre- Herbicide cost reduction: 40%
PhilippinesBt Corn- Seed costs: USD 50/acre- Yield increase: 34%- Break-even in 2–3 yearsYorobe and Quicoy [20]
- Additional inputs: USD 25/acre- Reduction in pesticide costs: 60%
BrazilGM Soybeans- Seed costs: USD 45/acre- Yield increase: 20%- Break-even in 2 yearsBrookes and Barfoot [5]
- Additional inputs: USD 18/acre- Herbicide cost reduction: 50%
USABt Corn- Seed costs: USD 60/acre- Yield increase: 7–12%- Break-even in 1–2 yearsCarpenter and Gianessi [12]
- Additional inputs: USD 30/acre- Reduction in mycotoxin contamination: significant financial savings
GM Apples- Seed costs: USD 65/acre- Yield increase: 10–15%- Break-even in 3–4 yearsBrookes [16]
- Additional inputs: USD 20/acre- Reduction in pesticide costs: 40%
GM Potatoes- Seed costs: USD 55/acre- Yield increase: 15–20%- Break-even in 2–3 yearsBrookes and Barfoot [5]
- Additional inputs: USD 25/acre- Reduction in pesticide costs: 50%
SpainGM Tomatoes- Seed costs: USD 35/acre- Yield increase: 15%- Break-even in 1–2 yearsGómez-Barbero et al. [14]
- Additional inputs: USD 15/acre- Reduction in pesticide costs: 50%
MexicoGM Tomatoes- Seed costs: USD 38/acre- Yield increase: 20%- Break-even in 2 yearsTraxler et al. [15]
- Additional inputs: USD 18/acre- Reduction in pesticide costs: 60%
GM Cucumbers- Seed costs: USD 30/acre- Yield increase: 12%- Break-even in 1–2 yearsGómez-Barbero et al. [14]
- Additional inputs: USD 12/acre- Reduction in pesticide costs: 35%
Source: Data compiled from previous studies.
Table 2. Empirical data on crop performance and pest and disease prevalence in Lebanon.
Table 2. Empirical data on crop performance and pest and disease prevalence in Lebanon.
CropRegionPerformance IndicatorsPests and DiseasesImpact on YieldImpact on RevenueCurrent Pest Control MethodsPotential GM Benefits
TomatoesMount Lebanon, BekaaAverage yield: 35–40 tons/haTomato Leaf Miner (Tuta absoluta), Late Blight (Phytophthora infestans)Yield loss up to 50%Reduced marketable yield leading to lower revenue
[28]		Chemical pesticides (high frequency)Enhanced pest resistance [29]
Revenue: USD 32,000–USD 37,000/haWhiteflies (Bemisia tabaci), Fusarium Wilt (Fusarium oxysporum)Yield loss, reduced qualityDirect impact on fruit quality and marketability [30]Biological control (limited success)Reduced pesticide use [31]
Production cost: USD 7000–USD 10,000/haAphids (Aphidoidea), Bacterial Spot (Xanthomonas spp.)Lower quality produceDisease leads to lower yield and qualityIntegrated pest management (IPM)Higher yields and better quality [32]
PotatoesBekaa, AkkarAverage yield: 23–30 tons/haColorado Potato Beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata), Late Blight (Phytophthora infestans)Yield loss up to 50%Direct impact on tuber quality and marketable yield
[33]		Chemical pesticides (moderate frequency)Enhanced disease resistance [34]
Revenue: USD 11,000–USD 15,000/haPotato Tuber Moth (Phthorimaea operculella), Early Blight (Alternaria solani)Yield loss, reduced tuber qualityReduced marketable yield due to tuber damage
[35]		Crop rotation (moderate success)Reduced production costs [36]
Production cost: USD 4000–USD 6,000/haAphids (Aphidoidea)Lower quality produceDisease leads to lower yield and quality [37]Biological control (limited success)Improved environmental sustainability [38]
CucumbersMount Lebanon, BekaaAverage yield: 30–35 tons/haAphids (Aphidoidea), Powdery Mildew (Podosphaera xanthii)Yield loss up to 40%Reduced marketable yield leading to lower revenue [39]Chemical pesticides (high frequency)Enhanced pest resistance
Revenue: USD 18,000–USD 21,000/haWhiteflies (Bemisia tabaci), Downy Mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis)Yield loss, reduced qualityDirect impact on fruit quality and marketability [40]Biological control (limited success)Reduced pesticide use [41]
Production cost: USD 5000–USD 7,000/haWhiteflies (Bemisia tabaci), Downy Mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis)Lower quality produceDisease leads to lower yield and quality [42]Integrated pest management (IPM)Higher yields and better quality
ApplesMount Lebanon, NorthAverage yield: 16–25 tons/haCodling Moth (Cydia pomonella), Apple Scab (Venturia inaequalis)Yield loss up to 30%Direct impact on fruit quality and marketable yield [43]Chemical pesticides (high frequency)Enhanced pest resistance
Revenue: USD 32,000–USD 50,000/haApple Maggot (Rhagoletis pomonella), Fire Blight (Erwinia amylovora)Yield loss, reduced quality [44]Direct impact on fruit quality and marketabilityBiological control (moderate success)Reduced pesticide use [45]
Production cost: USD 7000–USD 9,000/haAphids (Aphidoidea), Powdery Mildew (Podosphaera leucotricha)Lower quality produceDisease leads to lower yield and quality [46]Integrated pest management (IPM)Improved environmental sustainability [47]
MaizeBekaa, South LebanonAverage yield: 3–7 tons/haCorn Earworm (Helicoverpa zea), Maize Dwarf Mosaic Virus (MDMV)Yield loss up to 20%Direct impact on kernel quality and marketable yield [48]Chemical pesticides (moderate frequency)Enhanced pest resistance [49]
Revenue: USD 1380–USD 3,220/haFall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), Northern Corn Leaf Blight (Exserohilum turcicum)Yield loss, reduced quality [50]Direct impact on kernel quality and marketability [51]Crop rotation (moderate success)Reduced production costs [52]
Production cost: USD 2000–USD 3,000/haAphids (Aphidoidea), Southern Corn Leaf Blight (Bipolaris maydis)Lower quality produceDisease leads to lower yield and quality
[53]		Biological control (limited success)Improved environmental sustainability [54]
Table 3. Long-term financial impact (per ha).
Table 3. Long-term financial impact (per ha).
ParameterNon-GM TomatoesGM TomatoesDifference
Yield Increase (over 5 years)150 tons200 tons+50 tons
Cumulative Revenue (5 years)USD 150,000USD 200,000+USD 50,000
Cumulative Production Cost (5 years)USD 39,000USD 42,000−USD 3000
Cumulative Net Income (5 years)USD 105,000USD 154,000+USD 50,000
Assumptions: The yield increase is maintained consistently over a 5-year period and the costs and prices remain stable over the 5-year period.
Table 4. Short-term financial impact (per year).
Table 4. Short-term financial impact (per year).
ParameterNon-GM TomatoesGM TomatoesDifference
Initial Seed Cost (per ha)USD 200USD 400−USD 200
Production Cost (per ha)USD 6600USD 7000−USD 400
Yield (tons per ha)3040+10 tons
Revenue (per ha)USD 30,000USD 40,000+USD 10,000
Pesticide Cost (per ha)USD 1000USD 400+USD 600
Total Cost (per ha)USD 7800USD 7800USD 0
Net Income (per ha)USD 22,200USD 32,200+USD 10,000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Roberts, R.J.; Naimy, V. Strategic Adoption of Genetically Modified Crops in Lebanon: A Comprehensive Cost–Benefit Analysis and Implementation Framework. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8350. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198350

AMA Style

Roberts RJ, Naimy V. Strategic Adoption of Genetically Modified Crops in Lebanon: A Comprehensive Cost–Benefit Analysis and Implementation Framework. Sustainability. 2024; 16(19):8350. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198350

Chicago/Turabian Style

Roberts, Richard J., and Viviane Naimy. 2024. "Strategic Adoption of Genetically Modified Crops in Lebanon: A Comprehensive Cost–Benefit Analysis and Implementation Framework" Sustainability 16, no. 19: 8350. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198350

APA Style

Roberts, R. J., & Naimy, V. (2024). Strategic Adoption of Genetically Modified Crops in Lebanon: A Comprehensive Cost–Benefit Analysis and Implementation Framework. Sustainability, 16(19), 8350. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198350

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop