Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise and Prospects of Genetically Modified Crops
Open accessAbstract
For millennia, humans have modified plant genes in order to develop crops best suited for food, fiber, feed, and energy production. Conventional plant breeding remains inherently random and slow, constrained by the availability of desirable traits in closely related plant species. In contrast, agricultural biotechnology employs the modern tools of genetic engineering to reduce uncertainty and breeding time and to transfer traits from more distantly related plants. Critics express concerns that the technology imposes negative environmental effects and jeopardizes the health of those who consume the “frankenfoods.” Supporters emphasize potential gains from boosting output and lowering food prices for consumers. They argue that such gains are achieved contemporaneous with the adoption of farming practices that lower agrochemical use and lessen soil. The extensive experience with agricultural biotechnology since 1996 provides ample evidence with which to test the claims of supporters and opponents and to evaluate the prospects of genetic crop engineering. In this paper, we begin with an overview of the adoption of the first generation of agricultural biotechnology crops. We then look at the evidence on the effects of these crops: on output and prices, on the environment, and on consumer health. Finally, we consider intellectual property issues surrounding this new technology.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Barrows et al. found that GM crop adoption has reduced prices between 10% and 20% compared to the counterfactual world without GM crop adoption.
“Barrows et al. ( 14 ) found that GM crop adoption has reduced prices between 10% and 20% compared to the counterfactual world without GM crop adoption.”
From Environmental impacts of genetically modified crops (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
In “Estimating Effects of Genetically Engineered Seeds on Production and Prices” (page unavailable), the authors estimate that GM adoption lowered corn prices by 13% in 2010 and cotton prices by 18%. But their estimated soybean price decline ranges from 2% to 65%, so the claimed 10%–20% range does not hold for GM crops generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThere is considerable evidence of gene flow from GM to wild species, for example, in the case of GM to wild canola varieties in Canada.
“There is considerable evidence of gene flow from GM to wild species, for example, in the case of GM to wild canola varieties in Canada ( 14 )”
From Environmental impacts of genetically modified crops (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
The Environmental Benefits and Risks section reports that herbicide-tolerant traits in rapeseed have spread to wild relatives. It does not locate that gene flow in Canada or establish the claim’s broader characterization of “considerable evidence.” Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 65 · Cited by 210
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
Research works printed but not linked: 104
- Gouse, Marnus, Carl Pray, David Schimmel- pfennig. 2004. "The Distribution of Benefi ts from Bt Cotton Adoption in South Africa." AgBioForum 7(4): 187-194.
- Lynas, Mark. 2013. "Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013." Available from http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to -oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/.
- Qaim, Matin. 2009. "The Economics of Geneti- cally Modifi ed Crops." Annual Review of Resource Economics 1: 665 -94.
- Qaim, Matin, and David Zilberman. 2003. "Yield Effects of Genetically Modifi ed Crops in Devel- oping Countries." Science 299(5608): 900 -902.
- Sanders, Larry D. 2000. "The Economics of Conservation and Conservation Tillage." Paper presented at the International Symposium on Conservation Tillage, Mazatlan, Mexico, January 24-27. http://agecon.okstate.edu/isct /labranza/sanders/mazecon00.doc.
- Shaner, Dale L. 2000. "The Impact of Glyphosate-tolerant Crops on the Use of Other Herbicides and on Resistance Management." Pest Management Science 56(4): 320-26.
- Seungki Lee, GianCarlo Moschini, Edward D. Perry. 2023. Genetically engineered varieties and applied pesticide toxicity in U.S. maize and soybeans: Heterogeneous and evolving impacts. Ecological Economics 211, 107873. [Crossref] · DOI
- Saurav Das, Manjit Kumar Ray, Dinesh Panday, Piyush Kumar Mishra. 2023. Role of biotechnology in creating sustainable agriculture. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 2:7, e0000069. [Crossref] · DOI
- Jinjing Luo, GianCarlo Moschini, Edward D. Perry. 2023. Switching costs in the US seed industry: Technology adoption and welfare impacts. International Journal of Industrial Organization 89, 102977. [Crossref] · DOI
- Casper Worm Hansen, Asger Mose Wingender. 2023. National and Global Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. American Economic Review: Insights 5:2, 224-240. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links] · DOI · Paper page
- Alexandre Gohin. 2023. On the sustainability of the French food system: A macroeconomic assessment. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 45:2, 860-880. [Crossref] · DOI
- Akello Mirriam, Jayne Mugwe, Jamal Nasar, Oscar Kisaka, Shivani Ranjan, Harun Gitari. 2023. Role of Phosphorus and Inoculation with Bradyrhizobium in Enhancing Soybean Production. Advances in Agriculture 2023, 1-14. [Crossref] · DOI
- Eduardo Trigo, Hugo Chavarria, Carl Pray, Stuart J. Smyth, Agustin Torroba, Justus Wesseler, David Zilberman, Juan Martinez. 2023. The Bioeconomy and Food Systems Transformation. Sustainability 15:7, 6101. [Crossref] · DOI
- Wei-Bing Zhuang, Yu-Hang Li, Xiao-Chun Shu, Yu-Ting Pu, Xiao-Jing Wang, Tao Wang, Zhong Wang. 2023. The Classification, Molecular Structure and Biological Biosynthesis of Flavonoids, and Their Roles in Biotic and Abiotic Stresses. Molecules 28:8, 3599. [Crossref] · DOI
- Agata Tyczewska, Tomasz Twardowski, Ewa Woźniak-Gientka. 2023. Agricultural biotechnology for sustainable food security. Trends in Biotechnology 41:3, 331-341. [Crossref] · DOI
- Arantza Elena Sánchez-Gutiérrez, Genaro Martín Soto-Zarazúa, Manuel Toledano-Ayala, Juan Fernando García-Trejo. A Potential Alternative for Agar in In Vitro Culture Media Based on Hydrocolloids Present in Nopal: General Structure and Mechanical Properties . [Crossref] · DOI
- Sheryl Hendriks, Jean-François Soussana, Martin Cole, Andrew Kambugu, David Zilberman. Ensuring Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for All Through the Transformation of Food Systems 31-58. [Crossref] · DOI
- Eduardo Trigo, Hugo Chavarria, Carl Pray, Stuart J. Smyth, Agustin Torroba, Justus Wesseler, David Zilberman, Juan F. Martinez. The Bioeconomy and Food System Transformation 849-868. [Crossref] · DOI
- Charuta M. Parkhi, Lenis Saweda O. Liverpool-Tasie, Thomas Reardon. 2023. Do smaller chicken farms use more antibiotics? Evidence of antibiotic diffusion from Nigeria. Agribusiness 39:1, 242-262. [Crossref] · DOI
- Joeva Sean Rock, Matthew A. Schnurr, Ann Kingiri, Dominic Glover, Glenn Davis Stone, Adrian Ely, Klara Fischer. 2023. Beyond the Genome: Genetically Modified Crops in Africa and the Implications for Genome Editing. Development and Change 54:1, 117-142. [Crossref] · DOI
- Yusuf Chisti. Biotechnology for Sustainable Production of Food 1-29. [Crossref] · DOI
- Noureddine Chaachouay, Abdelhamid Azeroual, Bouchaib Bencharki, Lahcen Zidane. Food safety and biotechnological products 353-363. [Crossref] · DOI
- John R. Caradus. 2022. Intended and unintended consequences of genetically modified crops -myth, fact and/or manageable outcomes?. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 9, 1-101. [Crossref] · DOI
- Cunxi Wang, Gregory J. Bean, Chun Ju Chen, Colton R. Kessenich, Jiexin Peng, Nicolo R. Visconti, Jason S. Milligan, Robert G. Moore, Jianguo Tan, Thomas C. Edrington, Bin Li, Kara S. Giddings, David Bowen, Jinhua Luo, Todd Ciche, William J. Moar. 2022. Safety assessment of Mpp75Aa1.1, a new ETX_MTX2 protein from Brevibacillus laterosporus that controls western corn rootworm. PLOS ONE 17:9, e0274204. [Crossref] · DOI
- Renato Nunes de Lima Seixas, José Maria Ferreira Jardim da Silveira, Vinícius Eduardo Ferrari. 2022. Assessing environmental impact of genetically modified seeds in Brazilian agriculture. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 10. . [Crossref] · DOI
- Na Li, Le Chen, E. Chen, Cansheng Yuan, Hao Zhang, Jian He. 2022. Cloning of a novel tetrahydrofolate-dependent dicamba demethylase gene from dicamba-degrading consortium and characterization of the gene product. Frontiers in Microbiology 13. . [Crossref] · DOI
- Haiyan Wang, Peng Lei, Bin Liu, Jianchun Zhu, Qin He, Le Chen, Jian He. 2022. Mutations of Asn321 and Glu322 Improve Resistance of 4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate Dioxygenase Sp HPPDm to Topramezone. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 70:31, 9703-9710. [Crossref] · DOI
- Yan Jin, Simon Schaub, Jale Tosun, Justus Wesseler. 2022. Does China have a public debate on genetically modified organisms? A discourse network analysis of public debate on Weibo. Public Understanding of Science 31:6, 732-750. [Crossref] · DOI
- Emma Kovak, Dan Blaustein-Rejto, Matin Qaim. 2022. Genetically modified crops support climate change mitigation. Trends in Plant Science 27:7, 627-629. [Crossref] · DOI
- Katherine Lacy, K. Aleks Schaefer, Daniel P. Scheitrum, Eili Y. Klein. 2022. The economic value of genetically engineered mosquitoes as a malaria control strategy depends on local transmission rates. Biotechnology Journal 17:4, 2100373. [Crossref] · DOI
- Pooja Sharma, Surendra Pratap Singh, Hafiz M.N. Iqbal, Roberto Parra-Saldivar, Sunita Varjani, Yen Wah Tong. 2022. Genetic modifications associated with sustainability aspects for sustainable developments. Bioengineered 13:4, 9509-9521. [Crossref] · DOI
- H. Zakaria, F. K. Obeng, A. K. Quainoo, A. M. Abujaja. 2022. Prospects and constraints faced by smallholder farmers in the cultivation of GM crops: A case study from Northern Ghana. African Journal of Agricultural Research 18:3, 221-230. [Crossref] · DOI
- Meilin Ma, Jessie Lin, Richard J. Sexton. 2022. The Transition from Small to Large Farms in Developing Economies: A Welfare Analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 104:1, 111-133. [Crossref] · DOI
- Kjersti Nes, K. Aleks Schaefer, Daniel Scheitrum. 2022. Global Food Trade and the Costs of Non- Adoption of Genetic Engineering. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 104:1, 70-91. [Crossref] · DOI
- Manuel Antonio Fernández-Villacañas Marín, Ignacio Fernández-Villacañas Marcos. Agriculture 4.0 for a Sustainable Food System 69-89. [Crossref] · DOI
- Chelsea Sutherland, Savannah Gleim, Stuart J. Smyth. 2021. Correlating Genetically Modified Crops, Glyphosate Use and Increased Carbon Sequestration. Sustainability 13:21, 11679. [Crossref] · DOI
- Alicia Rihn, Hayk Khachatryan, Xuan Wei. 2021. Perceived subjective versus objective knowledge: Consumer valuation of genetically modified certification on food producing plants. PLOS ONE 16:8, e0255406. [Crossref] · DOI
- Akhter U. Ahmed, John Hoddinott, Naveen Abedin, Nusrat Hossain. 2021. The Impacts of GM Foods: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Bt Eggplant in Bangladesh. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 103:4, 1186-1206. [Crossref] · DOI · Paper page
- Kristiina Ala-Kokko, Lawton Lanier Nalley, Aaron M. Shew, Jesse B. Tack, Petronella Chaminuka, Marty D. Matlock, Marijke D'Haese. 2021. Economic and ecosystem impacts of GM maize in South Africa. Global Food Security 29, 100544. [Crossref] · DOI
- Vincent Smith, Justus H. H. Wesseler, David Zilberman. 2021. New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability. Sustainability 13:7, 3687. [Crossref] · DOI
- Alison L. Van Eenennaam, Felipe De Figueiredo Silva, Josephine F. Trott, David Zilberman. 2021. Genetic Engineering of Livestock: The Opportunity Cost of Regulatory Delay. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 9:1, 453-478. [Crossref] · DOI
- Linda Ferrari, Chad M. Baum, Alessandro Banterle, Hans De Steur. 2021. Attitude and labelling preferences towards gene-edited food: a consumer study amongst millennials and Generation Z. British Food Journal 123:3, 1268-1286. [Crossref] · DOI
- Fieke Dhondt, Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu. Future Sustainable Performance of Hemp 81-93. [Crossref] · DOI
- Rakesh Kumar, Narasimha Rao Nizampatnam, Minhaj Alam, Tarun K. Thakur, Anirudh Kumar. Genome Editing Technologies for Plant Improvement: Advances, Applications and Challenges 213-240. [Crossref] · DOI
- Fatemeh Badghan, Razieh Namdar, Naser Valizadeh. 2020. Challenges and opportunities of transgenic agricultural products in Iran: convergence of perspectives using Delphi technique. Agriculture & Food Security 9:1. . [Crossref] · DOI
- Lynn E. Kwak, Sang Won Yoon, Younjun Kim. 2020. Genetically modified crops' environmental impact and trust in eco-labels. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 28:4, 361-373. [Crossref] · DOI
- Koen Deconinck. 2020. Concentration in Seed and Biotech Markets: Extent, Causes, and Impacts. Annual Review of Resource Economics 12:1, 129-147. [Crossref] · DOI · Paper page
- Xiaomeng Cui. 2020. Beyond Yield Response: Weather Shocks and Crop Abandonment. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 7:5, 901-932. [Crossref] · DOI
- Ricardo Pelai, Shannon M. Hagerman, Robert Kozak. 2020. Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations. Forest Policy and Economics 117, 102191. [Crossref] · DOI
- Ryan Gunderson, Diana Stuart, Brian Petersen. 2020. Materialized ideology and environmental problems: The cases of solar geoengineering and agricultural biotechnology. European Journal of Social Theory 23:3, 389-410. [Crossref] · DOI
- Oliver Perkins, James D. A. Millington. 2020. The importance of agricultural yield elasticity for indirect land use change: a Bayesian network analysis for robust uncertainty quantification. Journal of Land Use Science 15:4, 509-531. [Crossref] · DOI
- K. Rodríguez-Núñez, F. Rodríguez-Ramos, D. Leiva-Portilla, C. Ibáñez. 2020. Brown biotechnology: a powerful toolbox for resolving current and future challenges in the development of arid lands. SN Applied Sciences 2:7. . [Crossref] · DOI
- Matin Qaim. 2020. Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42:2, 129-150. [Crossref] · DOI
- Lawrence J. White. 2020. A "Primarily Property" Presumption Is-Still-Really Needed for the IP/ Antitrust Interface. Review of Industrial Organization 56:4, 715-737. [Crossref] · DOI
- Daniel Scheitrum, K. Aleks Schaefer, Kjersti Nes. 2020. Realized and potential global production effects from genetic engineering. Food Policy 93, 101882. [Crossref] · DOI
- Xiaomeng Cui. 2020. Climate change and adaptation in agriculture: Evidence from US cropping patterns. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 101, 102306. [Crossref] · DOI
- Rebecca Mackelprang, Peggy G. Lemaux. 2020. Genetic Engineering and Editing of Plants: An Analysis of New and Persisting Questions. Annual Review of Plant Biology 71:1, 659-687. [Crossref] · DOI
- Ajay Kohli, Berta Miro, Jean Balié, Jacqueline d'A Hughes. 2020. Photosynthesis research: a model to bridge fundamental science, translational products, and socio-economic considerations in agriculture. Journal of Experimental Botany 71:7, 2281-2298. [Crossref] · DOI
- Bin Liu, Qian Peng, Mengyao Sheng, Haiyan Ni, Xiang Xiao, Qing Tao, Qin He, Jian He. 2020. Isolation and Characterization of a Topramezone-Resistant 4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate Dioxygenase from Sphingobium sp. TPM-19. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 68:4, 1022-1029. [Crossref] · DOI
- Paulo Ricardo S. Oliveira, Jose Maria F. J. da Silveira, David S. Bullock. 2020. Innovation in GMOs, technological gap, demand lag, and trade. Agribusiness 36:1, 37-58. [Crossref] · DOI
- Saima Aslam, Nadia Gul. Impact of Genetically Modified Crops on Environment 237-248. [Crossref] · DOI
- Rohaya Ali, Khurshid Dijoo Zulaykha, Nasreena Sajjad. Genetically Modified Microbes as Biofertilizers 275-293. [Crossref] · DOI
- Sadam Munawar, Muhammad Tahir ul Qamar, Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Faiz Ahmad Joyia. Role of Biotechnology in Climate Resilient Agriculture 339-365. [Crossref] · DOI
- David Wiley, Christy Ng Yen Nee. Food ingredients 377-391. [Crossref] · DOI
- Andrés Felipe Hernández-Pérez, Fernanda Valadares, Sarah de Souza Queiroz, Maria das Graças de Almeida Felipe, Anuj Kumar Chandel. Traditional bioeconomy versus modern technology-based bioeconomy 495-509. [Crossref] · DOI
- Deepayan Debnath, Madhu Khanna, Deepak Rajagopal, David Zilberman. 2019. The Future of Biofuels in an Electrifying Global Transportation Sector: Imperative, Prospects and Challenges. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 41:4, 563-582. [Crossref] · DOI
- Yan Jin, Dusȃn Drabik, Nico Heerink, Justus Wesseler. 2019. The Cost of Postponement of Bt Rice Commercialization in China. Frontiers in Plant Science 10. . [Crossref] · DOI
- Gordon Rausser, Steven Sexton, David Zilberman. 2019. The Economics of the Naturalist Food Paradigm. Annual Review of Resource Economics 11:1, 217-236. [Crossref] · DOI
- Alejandro Barragán-Ocaña, Gerardo Reyes-Ruiz, Samuel Olmos-Peña, Hortensia Gómez-Viquez. 2019. Transgenic crops: trends and dynamics in the world and in Latin America. Transgenic Research 28:3-4, 391-399. [Crossref] · DOI
- Federico Ciliberto, GianCarlo Moschini, Edward D. Perry. 2019. Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans. The RAND Journal of Economics 36. . [Crossref] · DOI
- Thomas C. Lee, Thomas C. Edrington, Erin Bell, Luis A. Burzio, Kevin C. Glenn. 2019. Effect of common processing of soybeans on the enzymatic activity and detectability of the protein, Dicamba Mono-Oxygenase (DMO), introduced into dicamba-tolerant MON 87708. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 102, 98-107. [Crossref] · DOI
- David Zilberman. 2019. Agricultural Economics as a Poster Child of Applied Economics: Big Data & Big Issues 1. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 101:2, 353-364. [Crossref] · DOI
- Thomas A. Swift, Thomas A. A. Oliver, M. Carmen Galan, Heather M. Whitney. 2019. Functional nanomaterials to augment photosynthesis: evidence and considerations for their responsible use in agricultural applications. Interface Focus 9:1, 20180048. [Crossref] · DOI
- Le Chen, Shigang Yao, Tao Chen, Qin Tao, Xiangting Xie, Xiang Xiao, Derong Ding, Qin He, Jian He. 2019. Coexpression of Methyltransferase Gene dmt50 and Methylene Tetrahydrofolate Reductase Gene Increases Arabidopsis thaliana Dicamba Resistance. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 67:5, 1443-1452. [Crossref] · DOI
- Matin Qaim. Genetically Modified Crops 159-164. [Crossref] · DOI
- Kai Cui, Sharon P. Shoemaker. 2018. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study. npj Science of Food 2:1. . [Crossref] · DOI
- Mei-Fang Chen. 2018. Social representations of genetically modified foods and public willingness to consume such foods in Taiwan. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 98:14, 5428-5434. [Crossref] · DOI
- Guy M. Robinson. 2018. Globalization of Agriculture. Annual Review of Resource Economics 10:1, 133-160. [Crossref] · DOI · Paper page
- Admasu Asfaw Maruta, Peter Boxall, Sandeep Mohapatra. 2018. Heterogeneity in attitudes underlying preferences for genomic technology producing hybrid poplars on public land. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 48:8, 869-880. [Crossref] · DOI
- David Zilberman, Scott Kaplan, Ben Gordon. 2018. The political economy of labeling. Food Policy 78, 6-13. [Crossref] · DOI
- Minyu Zhou, Ian Sheldon, Jihyun Eum. 2018. The role of intellectual property rights in seed technology transfer through trade: evidence from U.S. field crop seed exports. Agricultural Economics 49:4, 423-434. [Crossref] · DOI
- David Zilberman, Tim Holland, Itai Trilnick. 2018. Agricultural GMOs-What We Know and Where Scientists Disagree. Sustainability 10:5, 1514. [Crossref] · DOI
- David Zilberman, Ben Gordon, Gal Hochman, Justus Wesseler. 2018. Economics of Sustainable Development and the Bioeconomy. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 40:1, 22-37. [Crossref] · DOI
- Johnny Andrew, Normaz Wana Ismail, Marcel Djama. 2018. An overview of genetically modified crop governance, issues and challenges in Malaysia. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 98:1, 12-17. [Crossref] · DOI
- Leslie Lipper, David Zilberman. A Short History of the Evolution of the Climate Smart Agriculture Approach and Its Links to Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture Debates 13-30. [Crossref] · DOI
- N. Dane Scott. Progress in Crisis, Genetic Engineering and Philosophy of Technology 1-17. [Crossref] · DOI
- Colin A. Carter, K. Aleks Schaefer. GM Food Standards and Labeling in the USA . [Crossref] · DOI
- Wakjira Tesfahun. 2018. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Climate change mitigation and adaptation through biotechnology approaches: A review. Cogent Food & Agriculture 4:1. . [Crossref] · DOI
- Rachel E. Ragland, Jennifer L. Mansfield, Dennis A. Savaiano. 2018. A Universal Label for GMOs. Nutrition Today 53:1, 40-46. [Crossref] · DOI
- Ana Flávia Canovas Martinez, Luís Gustavo de Almeida, Luiz Alberto Beraldo Moraes, Fernando Luís Cônsoli. 2017. Tapping the biotechnological potential of insect microbial symbionts: new insecticidal porphyrins. BMC Microbiology 17:1. . [Crossref] · DOI
- Water Management in Modern Agriculture 29-52. [Crossref] · DOI
- Justus Wesseler, Joachim von Braun. 2017. Measuring the Bioeconomy: Economics and Policies. Annual Review of Resource Economics 9:1, 275-298. [Crossref] · DOI
- Benjamin C. Anderson, Ian M. Sheldon. 2017. R&D Concentration Under Endogenous Fixed Costs: Evidence from Genetically Modified Corn Seed. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 99:5, 1265-1286. [Crossref] · DOI
- Tina L. Saitone, Richard J. Sexton. 2017. Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands. European Review of Agricultural Economics 44:4, 634-657. [Crossref] · DOI
- Steven Haggblade, Melinda Smale, Alpha Kergna, Veronique Theriault, Amidou Assima. 2017. Causes and Consequences of Increasing Herbicide Use in Mali. The European Journal of Development Research 29:3, 648-674. [Crossref] · DOI
- Steven Haggblade, Bart Minten, Carl Pray, Thomas Reardon, David Zilberman. 2017. The Herbicide Revolution in Developing Countries: Patterns, Causes, and Implications. The European Journal of Development Research 29:3, 533-559. [Crossref] · DOI
- David Zilberman. 2017. Indirect land use change: much ado about (almost) nothing. GCB Bioenergy 9:3, 485-488. [Crossref] · DOI
- Alessandro K. Cerutti, Dario Donno, Maria Gabriella Mellano, Gabriele L. Beccaro. Environmental Sustainability of Traditional Crop Varieties 255-273. [Crossref] · DOI
- András Székács. 2017. Environmental and Ecological Aspects in the Overall Assessment of Bioeconomy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30:1, 153-170. [Crossref] · DOI
- Gal Hochman, Michael Traux, David Zilberman. US Biofuel Policies and Markets 15-38. [Crossref] · DOI
- David Zilberman, Deepak Rajagopal, Scott Kaplan. Effect of Biofuel on Agricultural Supply and Land Use 163-182. [Crossref] · DOI
- Jonathan R. McFadden, John A. Miranowski. Extreme Weather, Biotechnology, and Corn Productivity 337-361. [Crossref] · DOI
- Vartika Mathur, Lamis Javid, Samarth Kulshrestha, Aakash Mandal, Amarender A. Reddy. World Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops: Opportunities and Risks 45-87. [Crossref] · DOI
- Prakashan Chellattan Veettil, Vijesh V. Krishna, Matin Qaim. 2017. Ecosystem impacts of pesticide reductions through Bt cotton adoption. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 61:1, 115-134. [Crossref] · DOI · Paper page
- Authors
- Barrows, G., Sexton, S., & Zilberman, D.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2014-02-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 99-120
- ISSN
- 0895-3309 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2141902865
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12
- FWCI
- 25.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Economic Perspectives (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture and Biological Studies
- Keywords
- genetically modified crops, agricultural biotechnology, genetic engineering, crop adoption, crop yield, food prices, environmental effects, consumer health, agrochemical use, intellectual property, plant breeding
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review