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
Adoption of Bt Cotton and Impact Variability: Insights from India
Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Naik, G., & Zilberman, D. (2005) · Review of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00272.x · Cited by 202 · cited 1×
“[24] observed an increase in workload for crop maintenance and harvest of Bt adopters, mainly as a result of the higher yield.”
Azadi, H., & Ho, P. (2009) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2009.11.003 · Cited by 184 · cited 1×
“In general, benefits have to be balanced with local public concerns (see Azadi and Ho [62] for a review), as public opinion can influence individual famers adoption choices [43].”
Biotechnology boosts to crop productivity in China: trade and welfare implications
Huang, J., Hu, R., van Meijl, H., & van Tongeren, F. (2004) · Journal of Development Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.07.005 · Cited by 150 · cited 3×
“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].”
Evidence of slowing yield growth – The example of Swiss cereal yields
Finger, R. (2009) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.11.004 · Cited by 144 · cited 1×
“Increases over time in maize yields were expected, at least for most of the developed world [3,37].”
Self-citationHafner, S. D. (2003) · Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(03)00019-7 · Cited by 144 · cited 2×
“Increases over time in maize yields were expected, at least for most of the developed world [3,37].”
A GM subsistence crop in Africa: the case of Bt white maize in South Africa
Gouse, M., Pray, C. E., Kirsten, J. F., & Schimmelpfennig, D. (2005) · International Journal of Biotechnology · doi:10.1504/ijbt.2005.006447 · Cited by 134 · cited 7×
“particularly favor insect growth and reproduction [44].”
InfluentialCoexistence Rules and Regulations in the European Union
Beckmann, V., Soregaroli, C., & Wesseler, J. (2006) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2006.00932.x · Cited by 120 · cited 9×
“For example, in agreement with the findings of this study, Maciejczak [54] has reported a lack of publications on farm-level GM crop benefits in Europe— except for Spain.”
Influential'Bt cotton' benefits, costs and impacts in China
Huang, J., Hu, R., Fan, C., Pray, C. E., & Rozelle, S. (2003) · OpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies) · Cited by 117
Global impact of biotech crops: Environmental effects 1996-2009
Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2011) · GM Crops · doi:10.4161/gmcr.2.1.15529 · Cited by 117
Bt corn in Spain—the performance of the EU's first GM crop
Gómez‐Barbero, M., Berbel, J., & Rodríguez‐Cerezo, E. (2008) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt0408-384 · Cited by 111 · cited 6×
“In Spain, the main reason for gross margin differences have been attributed to different yield effects [21,22].”
InfluentialFarm-Level Economic Performance of Genetically Modified Cotton in Maharashtra, India
Bennett, R. M., Kambhampati, U. S., Morse, S., & Ismael, Y. (2005) · Review of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00273.x · Cited by 108
Self-citationGlobal crop production and the efficacy of crop protection - current situation and future trends
Oerke, E.-C., & Dehne, H. W. (1997) · European Journal of Plant Pathology · doi:10.1023/a:1008602111248 · Cited by 91 · cited 1×
“Increasing yields and costs might reflect general technological advances in agriculture and input costs [3-5].”
Pesticide Productivity and Transgenic Cotton Technology: The South African Smallholder Case
Shankar, B., & Thirtle, C. G. (2005) · Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2005.tb00124.x · Cited by 83 · cited 2×
“Shankar and Thirtle [33] observed that smallholders are offsetting the higher seed cost of GM by lowering the seeding rate per hectare.”
Benefits from Bt cotton use by smallholder farmers in South Africa
Ismael, Y., Bennett, R. M., & Morse, S. (2002) · MOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · Cited by 83
Self-citationProspects for Bt Cotton Technology in India
Barwale, R. B., Gadwal, V. R., Zehr, U. B., & Zehr, B. E. (2004) · MOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · Cited by 81
Bennett, R. M., Morse, S., & Ismael, Y. (2006) · The Journal of Development Studies · doi:10.1080/00220380600682215 · Cited by 78 · cited 1×
“In South Africa, yields were higher for Bt cotton adopters than non-adopters and pesticide costs were also significantly reduced [29-32].”
Self-citationRegulating coexistence in Europe: Beware of the domino-effect!
Demont, M., Daems, W., Dillen, K., Mathijs, E., Sausse, C., & Tollens, E. F. (2007) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.016 · Cited by 75 · cited 9×
“For example, in agreement with the findings of this study, Maciejczak [54] has reported a lack of publications on farm-level GM crop benefits in Europe— except for Spain.”
InfluentialBt Cotton in India: Development of Benefits and the Role of Government Seed Price Interventions
Sadashivappa, P., & Qaim, M. (2009) · MOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · Cited by 71
Global Impact of Biotech Crops: Income and Production Effects,
Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2009) · Agbioforum · Cited by 67
First impact of biotechnology in the EU: Bt maize adoption in Spain
Demont, M., & Tollens, E. F. (2004) · Annals of Applied Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.2004.tb00376.x · Cited by 67 · cited 1×
“In Spain, seed costs varied between regions because of the divergent pricing policies of seed suppliers [46,47], the bargaining power of farmers [48] and the potential for price discrimination between farmers [21,22].”
Biotechnology's future benefits: prediction or promise?
Burkhardt, J. (2002) · MOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · Cited by 43
Output and labour effects of GM maize and minimum tillage in a communal area of KwaZulu Natal
Gouse, M., Piesse, J., & Thirtle, C. G. (2006) · doi:10.35648/20.500.12413/11781/ii259 · Cited by 42 · cited 4×
“However, after three years of dry conditions, low stem borer infestation levels reduced the benefits of Bt maize [45].”
InfluentialThe impact of using GM insect resistant maize in Europe since 1998
Brookes, G. (2008) · International Journal of Biotechnology · doi:10.1504/ijbt.2008.018351 · Cited by 40 · cited 6×
“In Spain, increased management flexibility and convenience, reductions in contractor costs for spraying and reduced production risk were observed by Brookes [50].”
InfluentialFarm-Level Economic Impact of Biotechnology: Smallholder Bt Cotton Farmers in South Africa
Ismael, Y., Bennett, R. M., & Morse, S. (2002) · Outlook on Agriculture · doi:10.5367/000000002101293949 · Cited by 36 · cited 2×
“In South Africa, yields were higher for Bt cotton adopters than non-adopters and pesticide costs were also significantly reduced [29-32].”
Self-citationSize and Distribution of Market Benefits from Adopting Biotech CropsPreprint
Price, G. K., Lin, W. W., Falck‐Zepeda, J. B., & Fernandez‐Cornejo, J. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.758465 · Cited by 26 · cited 16×
“In Table 3 the reductions in pesticide costs range from 16% in the USA to about 70% in China.”
InfluentialAdoption and Impact of the First GM Crop Introduced in EU Agriculture: Bt Maize in Spain
Manuel, G. B., & Rodríguez‐Cerezo, E. (2008) · Joint Research Centre (European Commission) · Cited by 25
The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agbiotech
(2003) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0177-0 · Cited by 25
Economic Comparison of Transgenic and Nontransgenic Cotton Production Systems in Georgia
Jost, P. H., Shurley, D., Culpepper, A. S., Roberts, P., Nichols, R. L., Reeves, J. M., & Anthony, S. (2008) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0259 · Cited by 24
The Farm-Level Impact of Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans in Romania
Brookes, G. (2005) · MOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · Cited by 24
Commercialized GM crops and yield
Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., & Sadashivappa, P. (2009) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt0909-803b · Cited by 23
Consmüller, N., Beckmann, V., & Schleyer, C. (2009) · MOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · Cited by 17
Rejesus, R. M., Jk, G., Hammig, & Ce, C. (1997) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 17
The economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries: a note on the methods
Smale, M., Zambrano, P., Falck‐Zepeda, J. B., Gruère, G., & Matuschke, I. (2008) · International Journal of Biotechnology · doi:10.1504/ijbt.2008.022491 · Cited by 16
Monopoly Power, Price Discrimination, and Access to Biotechnology Innovations
Acquaye, A. K. A., & Traxler, G. (2005) · MOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · Cited by 13
Adoption Patterns of Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans in Argentina
Finger, R., Hartmann, M., & Feitknecht, M. (2009) · Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) · doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000159378 · Cited by 13
Self-citationThe lack of clear GMO regulation: its impact on researchers and farmers in Brazil
Contini, E., Sampaio, M. J. A. M., & Ávila, A. F. D. (2005) · International Journal of Biotechnology · doi:10.1504/ijbt.2005.006443 · Cited by 10 · cited 1×
“[53], Paredes and Amrtin [49] and Smale et al.”
Valuing Transgenic Cotton Technologies Using a Risk/Return Framework
Bryant, K. J., Reeves, J. M., Nichols, R. L., Greene, J. K., Tingle, C. H., Studebaker, G. E., Bourland, F. M., Capps, C. D., & Groves, F. E. (2008) · Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics · doi:10.1017/s1074070800002315 · Cited by 9 · cited 16×
“In Table 3 the reductions in pesticide costs range from 16% in the USA to about 70% in China.”
InfluentialThe farm level impact of using GM agronomic traits in Polish arable crops
Anioł, A. (2005) · Cited by 6
Adoption of Transgenic Crops by Smallholder Farmers in Entre Rios, ArgentinaPreprint
Paredes, C., & Martin, M. A. (2007) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.9996 · Cited by 3
Stock price responses on the German suspension of genetically modified maize
Finger, R. (2010) · Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) · doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000159377 · Cited by 2
Self-citation
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.”
Background
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
