Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops

Contents:

Author Info

  • Robert Finger

    ()
    (Agri-Food and Agri-Environmental Economics Group, ETH Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 33, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland)

  • Nadja El Benni

    ()
    (Agri-Food and Agri-Environmental Economics Group, ETH Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 33, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland)

  • Timo Kaphengst

    ()
    (Ecologic Institute, Pfalzburger Strasse 43/44, 10717 Berlin, Germany)

  • Clive Evans

    ()
    (School of Human and Environmental Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, P.O. Box 227, Reading, RG6 6AB, UK)

  • Sophie Herbert

    ()
    (Ecologic Institute, Pfalzburger Strasse 43/44, 10717 Berlin, Germany)

  • Bernard Lehmann

    ()
    (Agri-Food and Agri-Environmental Economics Group, ETH Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 33, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland)

  • Stephen Morse

    ()
    (Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Nataliya Stupak

    ()
    (Ecologic Institute, Pfalzburger Strasse 43/44, 10717 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

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.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/5/743/pdf
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/5/743/
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by MDPI, Open Access Journal in its journal Sustainability.

Volume (Year): 3 (2011)
Issue (Month): 5 (May)
Pages: 743-762

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:3:y:2011:i:5:p:743-762:d:12336

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.mdpi.com/

Related research

Keywords: biotechnology; GM crops; food security; technological change;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Huang, Jikun & Hu, Ruifa & Pray, Carl & Qiao, Fangbin & Rozelle, Scott, 2003. "Biotechnology as an alternative to chemical pesticides: a case study of Bt cotton in China," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 55-67, July.
  2. Finger, Robert, 2007. "Evidence of slowing yield growth – the example of Swiss cereal yields," MPRA Paper, University Library of Munich, Germany 9475, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  3. Matin Qaim & Arjunan Subramanian & Gopal Naik & David Zilberman, 2006. "Adoption of Bt Cotton and Impact Variability: Insights from India," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 48-58.
  4. Bryant, Kelly J. & Reeves, Jeanne M. & Nichols, Robert L. & Greene, Jeremy K. & Tingle, Christopher H. & Studebaker, Glenn E. & Bourland, Fred M. & Capps, Charles D. & Groves, Frank E., 2008. "Valuing Transgenic Cotton Technologies Using a Risk/Return Framework," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(03), December.
  5. Huang, Jikun & Hu, Ruifa & van Meijl, Hans & van Tongeren, Frank, 2004. "Biotechnology boosts to crop productivity in China: trade and welfare implications," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 27-54, October.
  6. Price, Gregory K. & Lin, William W. & Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, 2003. "Size And Distribution Of Market Benefits From Adopting Biotech Crops," Technical Bulletins, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service 33562, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  7. Carl Pray & Danmeng Ma & Jikun Huang & Fangbin Qiao, 2001. "Impact of Bt Cotton in China," CEMA Working Papers, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics 510, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
  8. Volker Beckmann & Claudio Soregaroli & Justus Wesseler, 2006. "Coexistence Rules and Regulations in the European Union," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1193-1199.
  9. Richard Bennett & Uma Kambhampati & Stephen Morse & Yousouf Ismael, 2006. "Farm-Level Economic Performance of Genetically Modified Cotton in Maharashtra, India," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 59-71.
  10. Bhavani Shankar & Colin Thirtle, 2005. "Pesticide Productivity and Transgenic Cotton Technology: The South African Smallholder Case," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 97-116.
  11. Demont, Matty & Daems, Wim & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Regulating coexistence in Europe: Beware of the domino-effect!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 683-689, February.
  12. Huang, Jikun & Hu, Ruifa & Pray, Carl & Qiao, Fangbin & Rozelle, Scott, 2003. "Biotechnology as an alternative to chemical pesticides: a case study of Bt cotton in China," Agricultural Economics: The Journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 29(1), July.
  13. Richard Bennett & Stephen Morse & Yousouf Ismael, 2006. "The economic impact of genetically modified cotton on South African smallholders: Yield, profit and health effects," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 662-677.
  14. Robert Finger, 2010. "Stock price responses on the German suspension of genetically modified maize," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, AccessEcon, vol. 30(3), pages 2220-2229.
  15. Matin Qaim & Greg Traxler, 2005. "Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 73-86, 01.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Gruere, Guillaume P. & Sun, Yan, 2012. "Measuring the contribution of Bt cotton adoption to India's cotton yields leap:," IFPRI discussion papers, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 1170, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:3:y:2011:i:5:p:743-762:d:12336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.