A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops

Finger, Robert; Benni, Nadja El; Kaphengst, Timo; Evans, C.S.; Herbert, Sophie; Lehmann, B.; Morse, Stephen; Stupak, Nataliya

doi:10.3390/su3050743

Cited by 99 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, the crops are bound to be the most advantageous for farmers economically. Higher economic performance as a result of adopting GM crops was documented in previous reviews or in meta-analyses around the world [32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Although reflections by the advocates of GM crops on the potential of these crops might attract more attention by providing solutions to the current problems of conventional agriculture [31], the critics portray a troublesome outlook on the negative environmental, economic, and social impacts of GM crops. Finger et al (2011) [32] believes that the contradictions arising on both sides of the debate (pro and con-GM crops) point to individual studies. They found that it was necessary to review the impacts that have been observed in different countries in order to create a comprehensive global prospect.…”

Section: Gm Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A World without Hunger: Organic or GM Crops?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been estimated that the world population will increase to 9.2 billion by 2050; supplying the growing population with food will require a significant increase in agricultural production. A number of agricultural and ecological scientists believe that a large-scale shift to organic farming (OF) would not only increase the world's food supply, but might be the only way to eradicate hunger sustainably. Nevertheless, OF has recently come under new scrutiny, not just from critics who fear that a large-scale shift in this direction would cause billions to starve but also from farmers and development agencies who question whether such a shift could improve food security. Meanwhile, the use of genetically modified (GM) crops is growing around the world, leading to possible opportunities to combat food insecurity and hunger. However, the development of GM crops has been a matter of considerable interest and worldwide public controversy. So far, no one has comprehensively analyzed whether a widespread shift to OF or GM would be the sole solution for both food security and safety. Using a literature review from databases of peer-reviewed scientific publications, books, and official publications, this study aims to address this issue. Results indicate that OF and GM, to different extents, are able to ensure food security and safety. In developed countries, given that there are relatively few farmers and that their productivity, even without GMOs, is relatively high, OF could be more a viable option. However, OF is significantly less efficient in land-use terms and may lead to more land being used for agriculture due to its lower yield. In developing countries, where many small-scale farmers have low agricultural productivity and limited access to agricultural technologies and information, an approach with both GM and OF might be a more realistic approach to ensure food security and safety.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Gm Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A World without Hunger: Organic or GM Crops?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a significant number of studies discussed yield and farm finances without own bottom-up data (52/83 studies). This meant that existing empirical data on yield and farm finances were repeated in many studies (e.g., [14,[56][57][58][59]). This could give the impression that claims of increased yields and profits have a more substantial empirical foundation than is actually the case.…”

Section: How Are Different Social Impacts Addressed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Agricultural economists looking across several countries in the global South have found "Bt cotton's impacts are 'inconclusive'" to date (Smale et al 2007). However, recent research says that Bt cotton is most impressive in a context where previous loss of the crop due to pests was extensive; alternatively, where there is less dramatic crop loss, the impact of Bt cotton is less significant (Finger et al 2011). A reliance on increased yield and profitability data as the overriding justification for Bt cottonwhich is not uncommon among those advocating for its use (as evidenced in the sheer mass of industry, State, and economic-development groups yield studies 16 ) -may actually overshadow other potential benefits for farmers in those locations where crop loss due to bollworm is less extensive.…”

Section: ____________________________________________________________mentioning

confidence: 99%

How do "imagined farmers" negotiate actual risks? Biosafety trade-offs in Bt cotton production in Andhra Pradesh, India

Freeman

2012

Journal of Political Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

India's encounter with genetically engineered Bt cotton has been a contested one, and one that has rarely conformed to expectations. I argue that two primary vantage points on the question of agricultural biotechnology – those advocating the "biosafe use" of Bt cotton or those who insist it involves "inherent problems" - frequently anticipate an "imagined farmer" in incomplete and sometimes plainly incorrect ways. Thus, there is more to the Bt cotton debate than has been considered to date. Drawing from qualitative interviews with cotton farmers in two regions of Andhra Pradesh, I call attention to the unintended effects of widespread Bt cotton cultivation and debates missing from this controversy. Misconstrual of the "imagined farmer" has edged out civil society's acknowledgement of farmers' negotiation of the (immediate and physical) risks of pesticide use as contrasted with those (more abstracted and unknown) of genetically engineered seed. Bt cotton's advocates, on the other hand, seldom address the unintended effects of its widespread use, including potentially reduced labor opportunities for the most marginal rural laborers. In conclusion, I urge a more expansive assessment of the trade-offs between risks and benefits that farmers make regarding Bt cotton, alongside a closer look at the nuances of their decision-making. Framing agribiotech risk as a matter of manageable (or inherently problematic) "biosafety" does not resonate with farmers using a broader concept of health and environmental safety threatened by heavy pesticide usage.Keywords: Bt cotton, political ecology, genetic engineering risk, pesticides, India

show abstract

A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops

Cited by 99 publications

References 37 publications

A World without Hunger: Organic or GM Crops?

A World without Hunger: Organic or GM Crops?

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

How do "imagined farmers" negotiate actual risks? Biosafety trade-offs in Bt cotton production in Andhra Pradesh, India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About