CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 225Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFood Security and Socioeconomic Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security

Open access
Qaim, Matin, Kouser, Shahzad·2013·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0064879PMC PMC3674000
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The role of genetically modified (GM) crops for food security is the subject of public controversy. GM crops could contribute to food production increases and higher food availability. There may also be impacts on food quality and nutrient composition. Finally, growing GM crops may influence farmers' income and thus their economic access to food. Smallholder farmers make up a large proportion of the undernourished people worldwide. Our study focuses on this latter aspect and provides the first ex post analysis of food security impacts of GM crops at the micro level. We use comprehensive panel data collected over several years from farm households in India, where insect-resistant GM cotton has been widely adopted. Controlling for other factors, the adoption of GM cotton has significantly improved calorie consumption and dietary quality, resulting from increased family incomes. This technology has reduced food insecurity by 15-20% among cotton-producing households. GM crops alone will not solve the hunger problem, but they can be an important component in a broader food security strategy.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0064879

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Density functions of household calorie consumption for adopters and non-adopters of Bt cotton. Functions were estimated non-parametrically using the Epanechnikov kernel with 1085 and 346 observations for adopting and non-adopting households, respectively. AE: adult equivalent.
Figure 1 Density functions of household calorie consumption for adopters and non-adopters of Bt cotton. Functions were estimated non-parametrically using the Epanechnikov kernel with 1085 and 346 observations for adopting and non-adopting households, respectively. AE: adult equivalent.CC0 · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Net effects of Bt adoption on household calorie consumption. Results based on calorie consumption regression models estimated with panel data and household fixed effects (within estimator). Full model results are shown in Table 4. Calories from more nutritious foods include pulses, fruits, vegetables, and animal products. Effects for the average adopting household take into account the number of ha of Bt cotton actually grown. **Significant at the 5% level. ***Significant at the 1% level.
Figure 2 Net effects of Bt adoption on household calorie consumption. Results based on calorie consumption regression models estimated with panel data and household fixed effects (within estimator). Full model results are shown in Table 4. Calories from more nutritious foods include pulses, fruits, vegetables, and animal products. Effects for the average adopting household take into account the number of ha of Bt cotton actually grown. **Significant at the 5% level. ***Significant at the 1% level.CC0 · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 225

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Qaim, M., & Kouser, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • University of Agriculture Faisalabad (PK)
Corresponding author
Qaim, Matin
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2013-06-05
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
e64879
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0064879
PMC
PMC3674000
OpenAlex
W2156375892
Cited by
222
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 4
FWCI
19.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
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 › Food Security and Socioeconomic Dynamics
Keywords
genetically modified crops, food security, insect-resistant cotton, smallholder farmers, household income, calorie consumption, diet quality, food insecurity, technology adoption, India
MeSH terms
Adult, Agriculture, Energy Intake, Gossypium, Data Collection, Food Supply, Humans, India, Middle Aged, Crops, Agricultural, Plants, Genetically Modified

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