Table 6. GM IR crops: average farm income benefit 1996–2012 ($/hectare).

Country	GM IR maize: cost of technology	GM IR maize (average farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology)	GM IR cotton: cost of technology	GM IR cotton (average farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology)
US	17–32 IRCB, 22–42 IR CRW	87 IRCB, 89 IR CRW	26–58	107
Canada	17–25 IRCB, 22–42 IR CRW	89 IRCB 106 IR CRW	N/a	N/a
Argentina	20–33	19	26–86	191
Philippines	30–47	94	N/a	N/a
South Africa	8–17	80	14–50	192
Spain	17–51	214	N/a	N/a
Uruguay	20–33	26	N/a	N/a
Honduras	100	61	N/a	N/a
Colombia	43–49	247	50–175	67
Brazil	54–69	83	34–52	8
China	N/a	N/a	38–60	361
Australia	N/a	N/a	85–299	211
Mexico	N/a	N/a	48–70	182
India	N/a	N/a	15–54	252
Burkina Faso	N/a	N/a	51–54	201
Burma	N/a	N/a	17–20	176
Pakistan	N/a	N/a	4–15	77
Average across all user countries		81		230

Notes: (1) GM IR maize all are IRCB unless stated (IRCB, insect resistance to corn boring pests); IRCRW, insect resistance to corn rootworm. (2) The range in values for cost of technology relates to annual changes in the average cost paid by farmers. It varies for reasons such as the price of the technology set by seed companies, the nature and effectiveness of the technology (e.g., second generation “Bollgard” cotton offered protection against a wider range of pests than the earlier first generation of “Bollgard” technology), exchange rates, average seed rates, and values identified in different studies. (3) Colombia, GM IR maize are farm level trials only. (4) Average across all countries is a weighted average based on areas planted in each user country. (5) n/a, not applicable.