A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops

Klümper, Wilhelm; Qaim, Matin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Cited by 692 publications

(418 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

395

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature reviewed here (99 papers) was dominated by studies of economic impact. That this trend goes beyond our review is illustrated by a recent meta-analysis published by Klümper and Qaim [8], which initially indicated that it would take a broad approach to social impact but then focused only on economic impacts (specifically impacts on crop yield, pesticide quantity, pesticide cost, total production cost and farm profits). The belief that social impacts can be measured by only addressing economic aspects has resulted in a general past trend of measuring social progress only in economic terms [103].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Previous discussions and evaluations of sustainability in general [4][5][6] and of agricultural practices [7] have been dominated by the ecological dimension, whereas the social aspects of sustainability have been rather neglected. However, the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture have been discussed in numerous studies (e.g., [8,9]). The sustainability-focused research on GM crops might thus be at the forefront of research addressing the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has recently been argued that the currently rather fragmented knowledge on the social impacts of GM crops probably contributes to the much polarised debate on GM crops [8,18]. Due to lack of a systematic, broad overview of existing knowledge on the social impacts of GM crops, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the full range and type of social impacts identified and how they materialise in different contexts of growing GM crops.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Social Impacts of GM Crops in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has recently been argued that the fragmented knowledge on the social impacts of genetically modified (GM) crops is contributing to the polarised debate on the matter. This paper addresses this issue by systematically reviewing 99 peer-reviewed journal articles published since 2004 on the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture; summarising current knowledge, and identifying research gaps. Economic impact studies currently dominate the literature and mainly report that GM crops provide economic benefits for farmers. Other social impacts are less well studied, but present a more complex picture. Studies on access to and benefits of GM crops show that these vary significantly depending on the political and regulatory setting. Substantial evidence indicates that intellectual property rights (IPR) and the private industry's dominance limit the access and utility of available GM crops to many farmers. Wellbeing is frequently discussed in the literature, but rarely investigated empirically. Existing evidence is contradictory and inconclusive. Impact studies from the Global North are virtually non-existent. Moreover, OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 8599 two-thirds of publications are based on previously published empirical evidence, indicating a need for new empirical investigations into the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Impacts of GM Crops in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18 Therefore, the rejection of GMOs based on consensus approximations might turn out to be detrimental to most of humanity within a few decades. 19 If we accept scientific evidence that GMOs are not more harmful to human health than their non-GM equivalents, and if we accept GMOs' gains in yield and in pest resistance (e.g., Klümper and Qaim, 2014), public opposition to GMOs creates social gridlocks. These gridlocks happen when the conditions of agents (e.g., consumers, farmers) could be improved without worsening the condition of anyone else (or, at least, without worsening the condition of another agent in proportions larger than would have been the case with non-GMOs).…”

Section: Second Best and Political Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus and Liberal Legitimacy: From First to Second Best?

Landes

2017

Les ateliers de l'éthique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Résumé de l'articleDans cet article, le consensus, défini comme le consentement de tous les citoyens, est présenté comme remplissant la fonction d'optimum de premier rang [first best] pour une partie de la tradition libérale quant à la légitimité politique. Le consensus fonderait la société libérale qui, lorsque hors d'atteinte, nécessiterait d'être approximer au travers, par exemple, du vote (règle majoritaire). Je m'appuie sur les timides tentatives en théorie politique d'utiliser le théorème de l'optimum de second rang [second best] comme outil pour résoudre des prises de décision difficiles en théorie politique appliquée. Plus précisément, je défends l'idée que le consensus serait l'optimum de premier rang pour une partie de la tradition libérale quant à la légitimité politique. De plus, j'illustre comment les désaccords moraux, factuels (et, incidemment, épistémologiques) peuvent créer des problèmes d'optimum de second rang, en particulier en termes de stabilité. Enfin, j'expose quelques raisons pour lesquelles de tels problèmes affectent directement un ordre libéral, d'un point de vue pragmatique. Le but final est de contribuer aux littératures sur la légitimité et sur l'application du théorème d'optimum de second rang à l'extérieur des sciences économiques. L'idée principale est de souligner qu'il reste beaucoup de travail afin d'« importer » le théorème d'optimum de second rang en théorie politique. ABSTRACT:In this article, consensus, defined as the consent of all citizens, is argued to be the first best for part of the liberal tradition on political legitimacy. Consensus would be the foundation of the liberal society that, when out of reach, needs to be approximated through, for instance, voting (majority rule). I build on the timid attempts in political theory at using the theorem of the second best as a tool to settle difficult decision making in applied political theory. More precisely, I defend the view that consensus would be the first best for part of the liberal tradition on political legitimacy. Furthermore, I illustrate how moral, factual, (and, incidentally, epistemological) disagreements may create second-best problems, especially in terms of stability. Finally, I spell out some reasons why such problems directly affect a liberal order, on pragmatic grounds. The final purpose is to contribute to the literatures on legitimacy and on the application of the theorem of the second best outside economics. The key idea is to stress that much more work has to be done for "importing" the theorem of the second best into political theory.

show abstract

“…Recent studies indicate the cultivation of transgenic plants benefits both farmers as well as the environment. 1,2 Many bioengineered plants are created through random insertion of transgenes that include a marker gene for selection of transgenic cells from non-transformed tissues. Some regions of the world are resistant to growing bioengineered plants for a number of reasons.…”

Section: Abstract Chimeric Transposase; Insect Transposon; Plants; Simentioning

confidence: 99%