Cited by 121Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchCapital Investment and Risk AnalysisAgricultural Innovations and Practices

Foregone benefits of important food crop improvements in Sub-Saharan Africa

Open access
Wesseler, Justus, Smart, Richard D., Thomson, Jennifer, Zilberman, David·2017·PLOS ONE

Abstract

A number of new crops have been developed that address important traits of particular relevance for smallholder farmers in Africa. Scientists, policy makers, and other stakeholders have raised concerns that the approval process for these new crops causes delays that are often scientifically unjustified. This article develops a real option model for the optimal regulation of a risky technology that enhances economic welfare and reduces malnutrition. We consider gradual adoption of the technology and show that delaying approval reduces uncertainty about perceived risks of the technology. Optimal conditions for approval incorporate parameters of the stochastic processes governing the dynamics of risk. The model is applied to three cases of improved crops, which either are, or are expected to be, delayed by the regulatory process. The benefits and costs of the crops are presented in a partial equilibrium that considers changes in adoption over time and the foregone benefits caused by a delay in approval under irreversibility and uncertainty. We derive the equilibrium conditions where the net-benefits of the technology equal the costs that would justify a delay. The sooner information about the safety of the technology arrive, the lower the costs for justifying a delay need to be i.e. it pays more to delay. The costs of a delay can be substantial: e.g. a one year delay in approval of the pod-borer resistant cowpea in Nigeria will cost the country about 33 million USD to 46 million USD and between 100 and 3,000 lives.

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.0181353

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.

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?

  • Many other GM traits developed in labs were rarely approved for commercial application, including traits for resistance to fungi and bacteria, tolerance to drought and heat, and improved nitrogen use efficiency.

    “many other GM traits developed in labs were rarely approved for commercial application ( 21 ), including traits for resistance to fungi and bacteria, tolerance to drought and heat, and improved nitrogen use efficiency ( 22 ).”

    From Environmental impacts of genetically modified crops (2024) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says regulatory delays in Africa can keep developed GE crops from reaching the market, and the Approval delays section gives examples. Citation (21) attaches to that approval claim, not the subsequent trait list, which has citation (22). The source does not establish the broader claim that GM traits developed in labs were rarely approved for commercial use generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 31 · Cited by 121

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. [1]African Union. An African Position on Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture. Conference of African Union Ministers of Agriculture, Libreville, Gabon, 27 November–1 December 2006. http://www.africaunion.org/root/au/AUC/Departments/HRST/biosafety/conference/2007/August/GMOs_paper.doc. Cited 2 May 2016.
  2. [2]Qaim M. Genetically Modified Crops and Agricultural Development. Hampshire UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016.
  3. [3]Bennett AB, Chi-Ham C, Barrows G, Sexton S, Zilberman D. Agricultural biotechnology: economics, environment, ethics, and the future. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2013; 38: 19.1– 19.31.
  4. [4]Paarlberg R. Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2008.
  5. [5]Smith LC, Haddad L. Reducing Child Undernutrition: Past Drivers and Priorities for the Post-MDG Era. World Dev. 2015; 68: 180– 204.
  6. [6]Kikulwe E, Falck-Zepeda J, Wesseler J. Incremental Benefits of Genetically modified Bananas in Uganda In Castle D, Phillips P, Smyth S, editors. Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2014 pp. 793– 807.
  7. [7]De Groote H, Overholt WA, Ouma JO, Wanyama J. Assessing the potential economic impact of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize in Kenya. African Journal of Biotechnology 2011; 10: 4741– 4751.
  8. [9]Wesseler J. The Santaniello Theorem of Irreversible Benefits. AgBioForum. 2009; 12: 8– 13.
  9. [11]Stein A, Sachdev H, Qaim M. Genetic Engineering for the Poor: Golden Rice and Public Health in India. World Dev. 2008; 36: 144– 158.
  10. [12]Wesseler J, Zilberman D. The Economic Power of the Golden Rice Opposition. Environ Dev Econ. 2014; 19: 724– 742.
  11. [13]Nguema A, Norton GW, Fregene M, Sayre R, Manary M. Expected economic benefits of meeting nutritional needs through bio-fortified cassava in Nigeria and Kenya. AfJARE. 2011; 6(1): 70– 86.
  12. [14]Gouse M. Socioeconomic and Farm-Level Effects of Genetically Modified Crops: The Case of Bt Crops in South Africa In: Falck-Zepeda J, Gruere G, Sithole-Niang I, editors. Genetically Modified Crops in Africa. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2014 pp. 25– 42.
  13. [16]Wafula D, Clark N. Science and governance of modern biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa—the case of Uganda. J Int Dev. 2005; 17: 679– 694.
  14. [22]Meldolesi A. GM bananas. Nat Biotechnol. 2011; 29(6): 472.
  15. [26]Falck-Zepeda J, Wesseler J, Smyth S. The current status of the debate on socio-economic regulatory assessments: positions and policies in Canada, the USA, the EU and developing countries. World Review of Science & Technology and Sustainable Development 2013; 10(4): 203– 227.
  16. [27]Gbègbèlègbè SD, Lowenberg-DeBoer J, Adeoti R, Lusk J, Coulibaly O. The estimated ex ante economic impact of Bt cowpea in Niger, Benin and Northern Nigeria. Agric Econ. 2015; 46: 563– 577.
  17. [29]Kumar P., Kumar A., Parappurathu S., and Raju S.S.. Estimation of Demand Elasticity for Food Commodities in India. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2011; 24: 1– 14.
  18. [31]Mamiro PS, Mbwaga AM, Mamiro DP, Mwanri AW, Kinabo JL. Nutritional Quality and Utilization of Local and Improved Cowpea Varieties in Some Regions in Tanzania. AJFAND. 2011; 11(1): 4490– 4506.
  19. [33]Englberger L, Darnton-Hill I, Coyne T, Fitzgerald MH, Marks GC. Carotenoid-rich bananas: A potential food source for alleviating vitamin A deficiency. Food Nutr Bull. 2003; 24(4): 303– 318. doi: 10.1177/156482650302400401 14870618 · DOI
  20. [38]Smart R, Blum M, Wesseler J. Trends in Genetically Engineered Crops’ Approval Times in the United States and the European Union. J Agr Econ. 2016; 68(1): 182– 198.
  21. [39]Herring R. State science, risk and agricultural biotechnology: Bt cotton to Bt Brinjal in India. J Peasant Stud. 2015; 42 (1): 159– 186.
  22. [40]Tosun J, Schaub S, Smart RD, Wesseler J. 2016. Sympathy for the Devil? Policy Activism and Voting Behaviour of EU Member States on the Approval of Genetically Modified Organisms. Paper presented at the 20th International Conference of International Consortium of Applied Bioeconomy Research, Ravello, Italy, June 26–29.

Authors
Wesseler, J., Smart, R. D., Thomson, J., & Zilberman, D.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Wesseler, Justus
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2017-07-27
Volume
12
Issue
7
Pages
e0181353
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2739671091
Cited by
121
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6
FWCI
18.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Capital Investment and Risk Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
Keywords
genetically modified crops, regulatory approval delays, real options, irreversible investment, technology adoption, malnutrition, smallholder farmers, risk regulation, sub-Saharan Africa, partial equilibrium
MeSH terms
Costs and Cost Analysis, Government, Social Control, Formal, Africa South of the Sahara, 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