The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops
Open accessAbstract
This paper reviews the evidence on the socio-economic impacts of GM crops and analyzes whether there are patterns across space and time. To this end, we investigate the effect of GM crops on farm-level costs and benefits using global data from more than one decade of field trials and surveys. More specifically, we analyze the effects of GM-crops on crop yields, seed costs, pesticide costs, and management and labor costs and finally gross margins. Based on collected data from studies on Bt cotton and Bt maize, statistical analyses are conducted to estimate the effect of GM crop adoption on these parameters. Our results show that, compared to conventional crops, GM crops can lead to yield increases and can lead to reductions in the costs of pesticide application, whereas seed costs are usually substantially higher. Thus, the results presented here do support the contention that the adoption of GM crops leads on average to a higher economic performance, which is also underlined by the high adoption rates for GM crops in a number of countries. However, the kind and magnitude of benefits from GM crops are very heterogeneous between countries and regions, particularly due to differences in pest pressure and pest management practices. Countries with poor pest management practices benefited most from a reduction in yield losses, whereas other countries benefited from cost reductions. However, our study also reveals limitations for meta-analyses on farm-level costs and benefits of GM crops. In particular, published data are skewed towards some countries and the employed individual studies rely on different assumptions, purposes and methodologies (e.g., surveys and field trials). Furthermore, a summary of several (often) short-term individual studies may not necessarily capture long-term effects of GM crop adoption.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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
Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory
Tabashnik, B. E., Gassmann, A. J., Crowder, D. W., & Carrière, Y. (2008) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1382 · Cited by 780
Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries
Qaim, M., & Zilberman, D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1080609 · Cited by 757 · cited 1×
“Also Qaim and Zilberman [20] show that yield effects of Bt cotton adoption in Argentina are higher than in other countries primarily because of the low level of insecticide use in conventional cotton production.”
Green revolution: preparing for the 21st century
Khush, G. S. (1999) · Genome · doi:10.1139/g99-044 · Cited by 521 · cited 1×
“Increasing yields and costs might reflect general technological advances in agriculture and input costs [3-5].”
Five years of Bt cotton in China – the benefits continue
Pray, C. E., Huang, J., Hu, R., & Rozelle, S. (2002) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1046/j.1365-313x.2002.01401.x · Cited by 479
Pray, C. E., Ma, D., Huang, J., & Qiao, F. (2001) · World Development · doi:10.1016/s0305-750x(01)00010-9 · Cited by 357
Enhancing the crops to feed the poor
Huang, J., Pray, C. E., & Rozelle, S. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01015 · Cited by 315 · cited 2×
“China showed the strongest effect of Bt cotton adoption on pesticide costs largely because cotton bollworms (Helicoverpa armigera) have been a major problem for cotton production in that country [16-19].”
Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects
Qaim, M., & Traxler, G. (2005) · Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00006.x · Cited by 291
Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops
Carpenter, J. E. (2010) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt0410-319 · Cited by 286 · cited 4×
“The analyses presented here do broadly support the pattern set out in much of the literature for the economic performance of GM crops: Compared to conventional crops, GM crops can lead to yield increases and can lead to reductions in the costs of pesticide application, whereas seed costs are usually substantially high…”
InfluentialBiotechnology as an alternative to chemical pesticides: a case study of Bt cotton in China
Huang, J., Hu, R., Pray, C. E., Qiao, F., & Rozelle, S. (2003) · Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2003.tb00147.x · Cited by 285 · cited 1×
“Health benefits for farmers due to Bt cotton adoption in China are frequently mentioned [27,28], but are not addressed in this economic analysis.”
Can GM-Technologies Help the Poor? The Impact of Bt Cotton in Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu-Natal
Thirtle, C. G., Beyers, L., Ismael, Y., & Piesse, J. (2003) · World Development · doi:10.1016/s0305-750x(03)00004-4 · Cited by 214
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Bryant, 2003, Economic and marketing: Transgenic cotton cultivars: An economic comparison in Arkansas, J. Cotton Sci., 7, 194
- Degenhardt, 2003, Bt maize in Germany: Experience with cultivation from 1998 to 2002, Mais, 2, 75
- Smale, 2006, Bales and balance: A review of the methods used to assess the economic impact of Bt cotton on farmers in developing economics, AgBioForum, 9, 195
- Gómez-Barbero, M., and Rodrigues-Cerezo, E. (2006). Economic Impact of Dominant GM Crops Worldwide: A Review, Joint Research Center, European Commission.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops
Klümper, W., & Qaim, M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 · Cited by 869
“While earlier reviews of GM crop impacts exist [19–22], our approach adds to the knowledge in two important ways.”
BackgroundGenetically Engineered Crops: From Idea to Product
Prado, J. R., Segers, G. C., Voelker, T. A., Carson, D., Dobert, R. C., Phillips, J., Cook, K. A., Cornejo, C., Monken, J., Grapes, L., et al. (2014) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-050213-040039 · Cited by 194
“The scientific knowledge required for and generated throughout this process has benefited farmers and society by contributing to higher crop output, lower resource input, improved pest control, economic gains, and farming practices that dramatically reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment (7, 8, 35, 48).”
BackgroundPellegrino, E., Bedini, S., Nuti, M., & Ercoli, L. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2 · Cited by 177
Forster, D., Andrès, C., Verma, R., Zundel, C., Messmer, M., & Mader, P. M. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081039 · Cited by 123
Agricultural GMOs—What We Know and Where Scientists Disagree
Zilberman, D., Holland, T. G., & Trilnick, I. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10051514 · Cited by 129
“[55] find that, while seed costs in GM crops are higher than in conventional ones, the total profitability of GM crops is still mostly higher.”
BackgroundPixley, K. V., Falck‐Zepeda, J. B., Giller, K. E., Glenna, L., Gould, F. L., Mallory-Smith, C. A., Stelly, D. M., & Stewart, C. N. (2019) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-045954 · Cited by 106
“A report by theNational Academies of Sciences,Engineering, andMedicine (NASEM) (94) and several recentmetaanalyses conclude that genetically engineered maize, cotton, and soybean varieties often outyield and economically outperform their conventional counterparts (21, 42, 74, 106, 112).”
BackgroundGenetically modified crops, regulatory delays, and international trade
Smyth, S. J. (2017) · Food and Energy Security · doi:10.1002/fes3.100 · Cited by 83
“Finger et al. (2011) examined 203 peer reviewed studies, concluding that yield increases are evident with GM crop adoption, but noted that these increases were due to reduced insect and weed population pressures and not due to actual genomic yield increases.”
BackgroundIs GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?
Phélinas, P., & Choumert, J. (2017) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.033 · Cited by 76
“This is confirmed in two recent meta-analyses (Finger et al., 2011; Klümper and Qaim, 2014) which stress the better economic performance of GM crop cultivation.”
Social Impacts of GM Crops in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review
Fischer, K., Ekener, E., Rydhmer, L., & Björnberg, K. E. (2015) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su7078598 · Cited by 75
“, [14,56–59]).”
Gouse, M., Sengupta, D., Zambrano, P., & Zepeda, J. F. (2016) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.008 · Cited by 64
“A substantial number of scholarly articles assessing the impact of GM crops in developed and developing economies has been reviewed by different authors (i.e., Smale et al., 2009; Areal, Reisgo, & Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2013; Finger et al., 2011, Klu¨mper & Qaim, 2014).”
BackgroundThe impact of agricultural biotechnology on supply and land-use
Barrows, G., Sexton, S., & Zilberman, D. (2014) · Environment and Development Economics · doi:10.1017/s1355770x14000400 · Cited by 63
“If GE technology 1 In two recent surveys, Carpenter (2010) and Finger et al. (2011) review 49 and 203 studies of GE yield impacts, respectively, all based on farm-level data.”
BackgroundCaradus, J. R. (2022) · New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research · doi:10.1080/00288233.2022.2141273 · Cited by 69
Global economic, environmental and health benefits from GM crop adoption
Smyth, S. J., Kerr, W. A., & Phillips, P. W. B. (2015) · Global Food Security · doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2015.10.002 · Cited by 55
Mannion, A. M., & Morse, S. (2012) · Progress in Physical Geography Earth and Environment · doi:10.1177/0309133312457109 · Cited by 49
Self-citationA World without Hunger: Organic or GM Crops?
Taheri, F., Azadi, H., & D’Haese, M. (2017) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su9040580 · Cited by 50
“Higher economic performance as a result of adopting GM crops was documented in previous reviews or in meta-analyses around the world [32].”
BackgroundInfluentialGlobal value of GM rice: a review of expected agronomic and consumer benefits
Demont, M., & Stein, A. J. (2013) · New Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2013.04.004 · Cited by 46
Are current EU policies on GMOs justified?
Christiansen, A. T., Andersen, M. M., & Kappel, K. (2019) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-019-00120-x · Cited by 43
Riar, A. S., Mandloi, L. S., Poswal, R. S., Messmer, M., & Bhullar, G. S. (2017) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.01289 · Cited by 38
“Because of the resistance to cotton bollworms and hence reduced pesticide usage, Bt-cotton was adopted by farmers relatively quickly after its first release in 2002 (Finger et al., 2011; James, 2011; Krishna and Qaim, 2012; Qaim and Kouser, 2013).”
BackgroundBrookes, G. R. (2019) · GM crops & food · doi:10.1080/21645698.2019.1614393 · Cited by 36
“These findings are also consistent with analysis by other authors.(11,12) It is, however, noteworthy that whilst this maize-seed technology has been approved for planting for many years throughout the EU, many other EU member states have chosen to utilize the provisions of EU Directive 2015/412 that allows member stat…”
ResultAinembabazi, J. H., Tripathi, L., Rusike, J., Abdoulaye, T., & Manyong, V. M. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138998 · Cited by 35
Measuring the contribution of Bt cotton adoption to India's cotton yields leapPreprint
Gruère, G., & Sun, Y. N. (2012) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 32
Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use 1996–2020: Impacts on Carbon Emissions
Brookes, G. R. (2022) · GM crops & food · doi:10.1080/21645698.2022.2118495 · Cited by 31
“As indicated in a number of meta-analyses (e.g., Brookes and Barfoot, 2020a,3 Klumper and Qaim, 2014,4 Finger et al., 2011,5) the adoption of GM technology has resulted in additional production from a combination of higher yields and facilitation of second cropping of soybeans after a wheat crop in…”
BackgroundBrookes, G. R., & Dinh, T. X. (2020) · GM crops & food · doi:10.1080/21645698.2020.1816800 · Cited by 29
Pros and Cons of GMO Crop Farming
Acker, R. V., Rahman, M. M., & Cici, S. Z. H. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.217 · Cited by 29
Impacts of improved agricultural technology adoption on welfare in Africa: A meta-analysis
Habtewold, T. M., & Heshmati, A. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17463 · Cited by 25
“These include the impact of genetically modified (GM) crops [48]; farm-level cost and benefit analysis of GM crops [49]; economic and agronomic impact of commercialized genetically modified crops [50]; impact of agricultural subsidies on farm technological efficiency [51]; impact of microfinance interventions [52]; an…”
BackgroundEpistemological depth in a GM crops controversy
Hicks, D. (2015) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.02.002 · Cited by 25
Analysing the farm level economic impact of GM corn in the Philippines
Afidchao, M. M., Musters, C. J. M., Wossink, G. A. A., Balderama, O., & de Snoo, G. R. (2014) · NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.njas.2014.05.008 · Cited by 22
The Differential Effects of Knowledge on Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food Safety
Hasell, A., & Stroud, N. J. (2019) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edz020 · Cited by 20
Jung, J.-W., Park, S.-Y., Oh, S., Jang, Y., Suh, S. J., Park, S. K., Ha, S., Park, S. K., & Kim, J. K. (2021) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods10102421 · Cited by 19
“Metabolomics is applied in conjunction with genomics and proteomics to gain a comprehensive understanding of complex networks of biological processes [24,25].”
BackgroundGenetically modified crops in developing countries: Savior or traitor?
Azadi, H., Taheri, F., Ghazali, S., Moghaddam, S. M., Siamian, N., Goli, I., Choobchian, S., Pour, M. G., Özgüven, A. I., Janečková, K., et al. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133296 · Cited by 18
Freshwater Ecology of Kenyan Highlands and Lowlands
Nyingi, D. W., Gichuki, N. N., & Ogada, M. (2013) · Developments in earth surface processes · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-59559-1.00016-5 · Cited by 17
Farmers willingness to grow GM food and cash crops: empirical evidence from Pakistan
Ali, A., & Rahut, D. B. (2018) · GM crops & food · doi:10.1080/21645698.2018.1544831 · Cited by 17
“Though the Bt cotton seed is much higher, the application of the pesticide is reduced, and yield is higher thereby leading to higher gross margins.(17,18) Studies have shown that the GM crops are disease resistant and increase the yield; onfarm experiment performedwith Bt cotton in several states of India shows that i…”
BackgroundLunenfeld, B. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 16
Molecular Identification of Genetically Modified Crops for Biosafety and Legitimacy of Transgenes
Nazir, S., Iqbal, M. Z., & Sajid-ur-Rahman (2019) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.81079 · Cited by 15
Impacts of the Land Tenure System on Sustainable Land Use in Ethiopia
Azadi, H., Moghaddam, S. M., Mahmoudi, H., Burkart, S., Dadi, D., Teklemariam, D., Lodin, M., & Lebailly, P. (2016) · MDPI eBooks · doi:10.3390/books978-3-03897-879-4-11 · Cited by 13
The Costs of Regulatory Delays for Genetically Modified Crops
Smyth, S. J., Falck‐Zepeda, J. B., & Ludlow, K. (2016) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.253074 · Cited by 14
A Question of Integrity: Variants of Bt Cotton, Pesticides and Productivity in Pakistan
Ma, X., Smale, M., Spielman, D. J., Zambrano, P., Nazli, H., & Zaidi, F. (2016) · Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12174 · Cited by 19
“Subsequent reviews of economic analyses based on farm surveys (Qaim 2009; Smale et al. 2010), as well as meta-analyses (Finger et al. 2011; Areal et al. 2013; Klümper and Qaim 2014), have generally borne out this prediction.”
BackgroundModern Biotechnology, Agriculture, and Ethics
Sandin, P., & Moula, P. (2015) · Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9567-6 · Cited by 13
“…usually refer to benefits in terms of increased yield, reduced environmental impact (Brookes and Barfoot 2008; Carpenter 2010; Mannion and Morse 2012), improved farmer health (Kouser and Qaim 2011) and higher economic impacts for adopting farmers in developing countries (Finger et al. 2011).”
Díaz, O. H., Meza, J. L. A., Baltazar, B. M., Bojórquez, G. B., Espinoza, L. C., Madrid, J. L. C., Martínez, J. M. D. L. F., Pompa, H. A. D., Escobedo, J. A., Banda, A. E., et al. (2016) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-016-9991-z · Cited by 13
“In both developed and developing countries, economic profits associated with GM crops are usually higher than those achieved with conventional varieties due to the combination of yield increases and reduction of production costs (Finger et al. 2011; Areal et al. 2013; Klümper and Qaim 2014).”
InfluentialGlobal Socio-Economic and Environmental Dimensions of GM Maize Cultivation
Popp, J., & Lakner, Z. (2013) · Food and Nutrition Sciences · doi:10.4236/fns.2013.46a002 · Cited by 12
“A paper on farm-level costs and benefits reviews the evidence on the socio-economic impacts of GM Bt maize and analyzes whether there are patterns across space and time [21].”
BackgroundInfluentialMcGale, E., Diezel, C., Schuman, M. C., & Baldwin, I. T. (2018) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.15207 · Cited by 12
Azadi, H., Taube, F., & Taheri, F. (2017) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2017.1322553 · Cited by 13
“All in all, there are some significant advantages for a co-existence approach, particularly considering the opportunities offered by different crops for coping with different production systems and varying environmental conditions, including climate change (Fontes, 2007).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialON-FARM TRADE-OFFS FOR OPTIMAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES IN MATO GROSSO, BRAZIL
Carauta, M., Libera, A. A. D., Hampf, A. C., Chen, R. F. F., da Silveira, J. M. F. J., & Berger, T. (2017) · Revista de Economia e Agronegócio · doi:10.25070/rea.v15i3.505 · Cited by 11
“While GMOs in some countries reduced production costs, in others they decreased production due to weak agricultural practices (FINGER et al., 2011).”
Arthropod food webs associated with cotton: Does Bt cotton mediate community stress?
Luz, C. E. A., Zuim, V., Oliveira, A. A. S., dos Santos, P. D. J., Campos, K. L., Haro, M. M., Vivan, L. M., Bastos, C. S., & Guedes, R. N. C. (2021) · Journal of Applied Entomology · doi:10.1111/jen.12928 · Cited by 11
“…this technology led to a broad adoption of GM crops throughout the world (Brookes & Barfoot, 2020a; International Service for the Acquisition of Agri- biotech Applications (ISAAA), 2020), although still followed by controversies (Finger et al., 2011; Gutierrez et al., 2020; Hilbeck et al., 2020).”
BackgroundPearsons, K. A., Chase, C. A., Omondi, E. C., Zinati, G. M., Smith, A., & Rui, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2022.1004256 · Cited by 13
“field crop production (Douglas and Tooker, 2015; Donley, 2019) and significantly affect management costs and profitability of conventional systems (Finger et al., 2011; Alford and Krupke, 2018).”
BackgroundYield and economic performance of the use of GM cotton worldwide over time
Witjaksono, J., Wei, X., Mao, S., Gǒng, W., Li, Y., & Yuán, Y. (2014) · China Agricultural Economic Review · doi:10.1108/caer-02-2013-0028 · Cited by 10
“Such an approach was considered to be necessary in order to avoid the publication of data and possible bias derived from citation and re-interpretation of data by different authors (Finger et al., 2011).”
MethodWesseler, J. (2018) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.5204 · Cited by 10
Socio-Ethical Aspect of Genetically Modified Organisms: A Critical Analysis
N., A., Singh, G., & Shackira, A. M. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-820780-2.00019-4 · Cited by 9
The impact of GM crops on agriculture
Schulman, A. H. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-817240-7.00012-7 · Cited by 9
Estimating The Potential Economic Benefits Of Adopting Bt Cotton In Selected COMESA Countries
Mulwa, M., Karembu, M., & Wafula, D. (2010) · Agbioforum · Cited by 9
New Types of Land Ownership to Sustain Life on Land
Theesfeld, I., & Curtiss, J. (2016) · MDPI eBooks · doi:10.3390/books978-3-03897-879-4-12 · Cited by 7
What have been the farm -level economic impacts of the global cultivation of GM crops?
Hall, C., Knight, B., Ringrose, S., & Knox, O. (2013) · Cited by 7
Forest Landscape Restoration and Sustainable Biomass Utilization in Central Asia
Thevs, N. (2016) · MDPI eBooks · doi:10.3390/books978-3-03897-879-4-7 · Cited by 6
Location, location, location: Presenting evidence for genetically modified crops
Morse, S., Mannion, A. M., & Evans, C. (2011) · Applied Geography · doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.08.015 · Cited by 7
Self-citationGMOs and poverty: the relationship between improved seeds and rural transformations
Smale, M. (2016) · Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développement · doi:10.1080/02255189.2016.1208607 · Cited by 6
“Turning to GM crops, I then draw from summaries and meta-analyses conducted by Smale et al. (2009), Finger et al. (2011), Areal, Riesgo, and Rodríguez-Cerezo (2013), Klümper and Qaim (2014) and Fischer et al. (2015).”
BackgroundMethodGenetic Improvement of Vegetables Using Transgenic Technology
Samal, K. C., & Rout, G. R. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-810439-2.00010-6 · Cited by 7
Crétenet, M., & Gourlot, J. (2016) · Éditions Quæ eBooks · doi:10.35690/978-2-7592-2380-0 · Cited by 6
OPINION PIECE Counterproductive consequences of ‘anti-GMO’ activism
Tagliabue, G. (2018) · Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics · doi:10.3354/esep00185 · Cited by 5
Kerr, W. A. (2019) · Agrekon · doi:10.1080/03031853.2019.1605299 · Cited by 5
“…them into their agricultural production systems,1 the overwhelming majority have eschewed the use of the technology despite considerable evidence regarding the benefits that acceptance of the technology would bring (Finger et al. 2011; Barrows, Sexton, and Zilberman 2014; Klümper and Qaim 2014).”
BackgroundTechnological opportunity, regulatory uncertainty, and the economics of Bt Cotton in Pakistan:Preprint
Spielman, D. J., Nazli, H., Ma, X., Zambrano, P., & Zaidi, F. (2014) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 5
An overview on the impact of genetically engineered organisms on crop yield and safety
Yogi, L. N., Kathayat, A., Bhandari, S., Paudel, P., & Mishra, P. (2024) · Archives of Agriculture and Environmental Science · doi:10.26832/24566632.2024.0901025 · Cited by 4
Assessment of the Environmental and Health Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops
Agarwal, A. V., & Singh, R. P. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-820780-2.00015-7 · Cited by 4
Freeman, J. (2012) · Journal of Political Ecology · doi:10.2458/v19i1.21724 · Cited by 4
“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).”
BackgroundChalla, S., Neelapu, N. R. R., Dutta, T., & Mishra, M. R. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5337-0_34 · Cited by 4
Williams, A., Stuart, J. S., & William, A. (2013) · AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY · doi:10.5897/ajb2012.11918 · Cited by 4
“In a meta-analysis of 203 publications, Finger et al. (2011) argued that GM seeds do not increase yield per se because insect and herbicide traits are not designed to increase crop yield potential, but actually reduces the loss in potential yield caused by pest damage.”
BackgroundMorse, S. (2016) · Outlook on Agriculture · doi:10.1177/0030727016666237 · Cited by 4
“However, these agronomic and economic advantages can vary a great deal depending on local context, and indeed in some contexts they may not be apparent at all (Finger et al., 2011).”
BackgroundSelf-citationRegulatory System Impacts on Global GM Crop Adoption Patterns
Gleim, S. W., Smyth, S. J., & Phillips, P. W. B. (2016) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.253071 · Cited by 3
“, 2010); yield increases (Carpenter, 2010; Finger et al., 2011; Areal, Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2013; Klümper and Qaim, 2014); reductions in hand weeding (Gouse, 2013); and producer profitability (Trigo, 2011).”
BackgroundGouse, M. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-9440-9_13 · Cited by 3
Lim, H. S., Yoon, A.-M., Kim, I. R., Choi, W., Jung, Y. J., Lee, S.-H., & Lee, J. R. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13127185 · Cited by 3
Biotechnology for Farmers Welfare and Poverty Reduction: Technologies, Impact and Policy Framework
Rao, N. C. (2017) · Agricultural Economics Research Review · doi:10.5958/0974-0279.2017.00038.6 · Cited by 3
Sharma, T., Kathpalia, J., Kumari, V., & Tyagi, R. (2021) · Journal of Global Communication · doi:10.5958/0976-2442.2021.00007.0 · Cited by 3
Dzanku, F. M., Zambrano, P., Wood‐Sichra, U., Falck‐Zepeda, J. B., Chambers, J. A., Hanson, H., & Boadu, P. (2018) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 3
Potential market and welfare effects of a gene-edited technology on the U.S. soybean market
Lee, Y., Perrin, R. K., & Fulginiti, L. E. (2025) · The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review · doi:10.22434/ifamr.1098 · Cited by 2
Sainger, M., Sainger, P. A., Chaudhary, D., Jaiwal, R., Singh, R. P., Dhankher, O. P., & Jaiwal, P. K. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2662-8_11 · Cited by 3
Nutzen und Risiken der Freisetzung gentechnisch Veränderter Pflanzen
59, N. F. (2012) · vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich eBooks · doi:10.3218/3484-4 · Cited by 2
Can Justice Respect Needs and Nature? The Idea of a Nature-Respecting Sufficiency
Ziegler, R. (2016) · MDPI eBooks · doi:10.3390/books978-3-03897-879-4-4 · Cited by 3
GMOs: History, Economic Status, Risks, and Socio-Economic Regulatory Frameworks
Nawaz, M. A., Ali, M. A., Golokhvast, K. S., Tsatsakis, A. M., & Chung, G. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823903-2.00013-5 · Cited by 2
The Management of Helicoverpa Species by Entomopathogenic Nematodes
Hussain, M. A., & Ahmad, W. (2015) · Soil biology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14499-3_14 · Cited by 2
Agricultural Biotechnology and Public Attitudes
Aerni, P. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-802259-7.00014-2 · Cited by 2
Nuthalapati, C. S. R. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-9431-7_7 · Cited by 2
Bequet, L. (2020) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106773 · Cited by 2
Yağcı, A. H. (2016) · ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · doi:10.7275/8420639.0 · Cited by 2
Mitzschke (2018) · Research Publications (Maastricht University) · doi:10.26481/dis.20181220am · Cited by 2
Göncü, S., & Harmankaya, Y. (2023) · MOJ Ecology & Environmental Sciences · doi:10.15406/mojes.2023.08.00270 · Cited by 1
Bett, E., Nyairo, N., Ayieko, D. M. O., & Amolo, J. O. (2014) · Cited by 1
Welfare Analysis of Lifting the GM Ban in Russia
Chetvertakov, S. (2016) · Agris on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics · doi:10.7160/aol.2016.080204 · Cited by 1
Viju, C., Smyth, S. J., & Kerr, W. A. (2017) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s1574-871520170000017013 · Cited by 1
Arslan, G., Şuţan, N. A., & Yanık, T. (2019) · Journal of Applied and Physical Sciences · doi:10.20474/japs-5.2.3
“…farm to farm as well as from year to year, depending on the level of infestation and/or weather, the increase in yield and higher economic performance offered by GM crop adoption is signiicant for farmers in developing countries and present but less signiicant for developed countries [32, 33].”
Emerging Biotechnologies in Agriculture for Efficient Farming and Global Food Production
Ranawat, B., Shah, F., Dubey, S., Singh, A., & Mishra, S. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-9001-3_14 · Cited by 1
Perception of Food Crops Developed by Mutagenesis Among Various Stakeholders
Pradhan, S., & Parida, A. K. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-2722-7_11 · Cited by 1
Agricultural Innovation and Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa in Nigeria
Olumide, A. (2024) · Journal of Developing Country Studies · doi:10.47604/jdcs.2672 · Cited by 1
“Additionally, the adoption of GM crops can contribute to food security by improving the affordability of food through lower production costs and reduced market prices (Finger, 2020).”
BackgroundHedoui, M. A., & Beghin, J. C. (2024) · Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics · doi:10.1111/1467-8489.12591 · Cited by 2
Chaturvedi, S., Srinivas, K. R., & Kumar, A. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-32-9511-7_1 · Cited by 1
Guida, A. (2021) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13712 · Cited by 1
Hountondji, P. S., Tovignan, S., Hountondji, R. L., KOKOYE, H. S. E., Adjiba, C. T. S., Bonou-zin, R. D. C., Koussahoue, S. A., & Jonas, F. (2021) · European Scientific Journal ESJ · doi:10.19044/esj.2021.v17n14p85 · Cited by 1
“Some of these studies have shown that organic agriculture is more economically profitable than conventional agriculture (Houndekon, 2013; Tovignan et al., 2018), while others have shown the opposite (Finger et al., 2011; Forster et al., 2013).”
BackgroundEstimating the Effect of Bt Cotton on Input Expenditure and Yield: An Indian Perspective
Giridhar, B. J., Praveen, K. V., & Singh, A. (2022) · National Academy Science Letters · doi:10.1007/s40009-022-01102-0 · Cited by 2
The role of genetic breeding in food security: A review
Sam, E. K., Odoom, D. A., & Mensah, C. (2022) · International Journal of Frontline Research in Life Science · doi:10.56355/ijfrls.2022.1.1.0001 · Cited by 1
Hicks, D., & Millstein, R. L. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_545-1 · Cited by 1
Dguidegue, Y. (2019) · doi:10.32469/10355/70067 · Cited by 1
Trade in CRISPR/Gene-Edited Wheat: A Partial Equilibrium Analysis
Fosu, P. (2019) · NDSU Repository (North Dakota State University) · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Finger, R., El Benni, N., Kaphengst, T., Evans, C., Herbert, S., Lehmann, B., Morse, S., & Stupak, N.
- Affiliations
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- Agri-Food and Agri-Environmental Economics Group, ETH Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 33, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
- Ecologic Institute (DE)
- University of Reading (GB)
- University of Surrey (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Finger, Robert
- Venue
- Sustainability
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2011-05-10
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 743-762
- ISSN
- 2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2115651452
- Cited by
- 129
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 8.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
- OpenAgrar (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- ETH Zürich Research Collection
- Funders
- European Commission
- 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 › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Insect Resistance and Genetics
- Keywords
- genetically modified crops, Bt cotton, Bt maize, crop yield, seed cost, pesticide costs, labor costs, gross margin, pest control strategies, GM crop adoption, socio-economic impacts, meta-analysis limitations
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
