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.”
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
