Economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries

Current Opinion in Biotechnology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 174-178

  Raney, Terri ^a  

^a FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FOOD PRODUCTS; MARKETING;

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH; FOOD SAFETY REGULATIONS; TRANSGENIC CROPS;

CULTIVATION;

AGRICULTURE; ARGENTINA; CHINA; CROP; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; INDIA; MEXICO; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SOUTH AFRICA; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; GENETIC ENGINEERING; HUMANS; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED;

CULTIVATION;

EID: 33645933295     PISSN: 09581669     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.copbio.2006.02.009     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. James C: Preview: global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2005. ISAAA 2005. ISAAA Briefs No. 34.
2. Food and Agriculture Organization. Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?. The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04 (2004), Food and Agriculture Organization 3-106. This report provides a comprehensive survey of agricultural biotechnology - especially transgenic crops - in developing countries and explores its potential for alleviating poverty and hunger. The report analyzes the socio-economic impacts of technological change and reviews the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing countries thus far. The report also reviews the environmental and food safety hazards associated with transgenic crops and evaluates the scientific evidence to date. Recommendations to enhance delivery of appropriate innovations to farmers in poor countries are made.
3. Qaim M., and Matuschke I. Impacts of genetically modified crops in developing countries: a survey. Q J Int Agric 44 (2005) 207-227. This article reviews the evolving academic literature on the economic and environmental impacts of transgenic crops in developing countries. The authors conclude that farmers in developing countries can benefit substantially from proprietary, private-sector innovations, but that more public sector involvement in research, product development and dissemination are required to reach marginalized farmers and consumers.
4. Toenniessen G., O'Toole J., and DeVries J. Advances in plant biotechnology and its adoption in developing countries. Curr Opin Plant Biol 6 (2003) 191-198
5. Ruttan V.W. Controversy about agricultural technology - lessons from the green revolution. Int J Biotechnol 6 (2004) 43-54. Reviews the productivity and equity effects of technological change in agriculture on the basis of the green revolution experience and draws lessons for the likely impact of biotechnology.
6. Anderson K., and Jackson L. Some implications of GM food technology policies for sub-Saharan Africa. J Af Economies 14 (2005) 385-410
7. Naylor R., Falcon W., Goodman R., Jahn M., Sengooba T., Tefera H., and Nelson R. Biotechnology in the developing world: a case for increased investments in orphan crops. Food Policy 29 (2004) 15-44
8. Huesing J., and English L. The impact of Bt crops on the developing world. AgBioForum 7 (2004) 84-95
9. Byerlee D., and Fischer K. Accessing modern science: policy and institutional options for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries. World Dev 30 (2002) 913-948
10. Thomson J. The status of plant biotechnology in Africa. AgBioForum 7 (2004) 9-12
11. Cohen J. Poorer nations turn to publicly developed GM crops. Nat Biotechnol 23 (2005) 27-33
12. Zilberman D., and Graaf G. IPR innovation and the evolution of biotechnology in developing countries. Q J Int Agric 44 (2005) 247-266 Special Issue. The authors examine the impact of IPR regimes on agricultural biotechnology research and argue that, although the current system of patents and proprietary information effectively generates innovations for large commercial markets, it neglects niche markets, including those aimed at the poor.
13. In: Evenson R., and Santaniello V. (Eds). The Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology (2004), CABI Publishing. This book of selected papers from the International Consortium for Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICABR) provides a good introduction to, and overview of, the economics of regulation for agricultural biotechnology. The annual ICABR meetings are often the first place where academic research on the economics of agricultural biotechnology is presented, and several volumes of selected papers on various themes have been published.
14. Pray C., Bengali P., and Ramaswami B. The cost of biosafety regulations: the Indian experience. Q J Int Agric 44 (2005) 267-289 Special Issue. This paper investigates the economics of biosafety regulations in developing countries and finds that, although the direct costs of compliance can be high, they are often dwarfed by the indirect costs of profits foregone by the technology developer when approval is delayed or denied. These costs act as a disincentive to R&D by private firms.
15. In: Wesseler J. (Ed). Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops (2005), Springer
16. Sobolevshy A., Moschini G., and Lapan H. Genetically modified crops and product differentiation: trade and welfare effects in the soybean complex. Am J Agric Econ 87 (2004) 621-644
17. Tothova M., and Oehmke J. Whom to join? The small country dilemma in adopting GM crops in a fragmented trade environment. Q J Int Agric 44 (2005) 291-310 Special Issue
18. Pray C., Huang J., Hu R., and Rozelle S. Five years of Bt cotton in China - the benefits continue. Plant J 31 (2002) 423-430
19. Huang J., Hu R., Pray C., Qiao F., and Rozelle S. Biotechnology as an alternative to chemical pesticides: a case study of Bt cotton in China. Agric Econ 29 (2003) 55-67
20. Huang J., Hu R., Rozelle S., and Pray C. Insect-resistant GM rice in farmers' fields: assessing productivity and health effects. Science 308 (2005) 688-690. This work studies two of the four GM rice varieties that are being considered for commercialization in China on the basis of farm-level pre-production trials. Farm surveys of randomly selected farm households that are cultivating the IR rice varieties, without the aid of experimental station technicians, demonstrate that small and poor households benefit through both higher yields and reduced use of pesticides, which in addition to lower costs also contribute to improved health. Yield advantages were also apparent, but comparisons with non-GM varieties suggest that the available IR varieties might not have the best available background germplasm.
21. Pray C., and Huang J. The Impact of Bt-cotton in China. In: Kalaitzandonakes N. (Ed). The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agbiotech: A Global Perspective (2003), Kluwer-Plenum Academic Publishers 223-242
22. Qaim M., and de Janvry A. Genetically modified crops, corporate pricing strategies, and farmers' adoption: the case of Bt cotton in Argentina. Am J Agric Econ 85 (2003) 814-828
23. Qaim M., and Traxler G. Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level, environmental and welfare effects. Agric Econ 32 (2004) 73-86
24. Trigo E., and Cap E. The impact of the introduction of transgenic crops in Argentinean agriculture. AgBioForum 6 (2003) 87-94
25. Bennett R., Ismael Y., Morse S., and Shankar B. Reductions in insecticide use from adoption of BT cotton in South Africa: impacts on economic performance and toxic load to the environment. J Agric Sci 142 (2004) 665-674
26. Thirtle C., Beyers L., Ismael Y., and Piesse J. Can GM technologies help the poor? The impact of Bt cotton in Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu-Natal. World Dev 31 (2003) 717-732
27. Gouse M., Pray C., and Schimmelpfennig D. The distribution of benefits from Bt cotton adoption in South Africa. AgBioForum 7 (2004) 187-194
28. Gouse M., Kirsten J., Shankar B., and Thirtle C. Bt cotton in KwaZulu Natal: technological triumph but institutional failure. AgBiotechNet 7 (2005) 1-7. This study reviews the experience of poor small-scale farmers in South Africa with Bt cotton adoption and examines the institutional arrangements underpinning the initial success and ultimate failure of the technology. The study concludes that Bt cotton could be an excellent technology for other African countries, but warns that institutional failure is the norm rather than the exception in Africa.
29. Gouse M., Pray C., Kirsten J., and Schimmelpfennig D. A GM subsistence crop in Africa: the case of Bt white maize in South Africa. Int J Biotechnol 7 (2005) 84-94. This paper examines the economic impact of the first transgenic staple food crop to be adopted anywhere in the world. IR varieties of yellow maize have been grown by large commercial farmers in South Africa since 1998, but it is used primarily in animal feed. White maize is the preferred food crop, and IR varieties were first made available to farmers in 2001. The study evaluates the economic impacts of IR maize by farm size and concludes with policy recommendations to make IR maize more accessible to small farmers.
30. Traxler G., and Godoy-Avila S. Transgenic cotton in mexico. AgBioForum 7 (2004) 57-62
31. Qayum A, Sakkhari K: Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh: a three-year assessment. Deccan Development Society; 2005. URL: http://www.grain.org/research_files/BT_Cotton_-_A_three_year_report.pdf.
32. Qaim M., and Zilberman D. Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science 299 (2003) 900-902
33. Qaim M. Bt cotton in India: field trial results and economic projections. World Dev 31 (2003) 2115-2127
34. Bennett R., Ismael Y., Kambhampati U., and Morse S. Economic impact of genetically modified cotton in India. AgBioForum 7 (2004) 96-100
35. Morse S., Bennett R., and Ismael Y. Comparing the performance of official and unofficial genetically modified cotton in India. AgBioForum 8 (2005) 1-6. The study evaluated the relative merits of two official and two unofficial Bt cultivars with a popular non-Bt counterpart in Gujarat. Unofficial varieties have not received government authorization, which has several implications: they are less costly because no royalties are paid, they may be newer varieties because they have not undergone a lengthy approval process, but they might be less reliable than the official varieties. The study confirmed that both of the official Bt varieties outperformed the unofficial and non-Bt varieties in terms of yields and net profits. However, the unofficial locally produced Bt hybrid also performed significantly better than the non-Bt hybrids.
36. Qaim M., Subramanian A., Naik G., and Zilberman D. Adoption of Bt cotton and impact variability: insights from India. Rev Agric Econ 28 (2006) 48-58. This paper evaluates the farm-level economic impacts of Bt cotton in four states in India in 2003 controlling for existing variability in pest pressure, pesticide use and germplasm. The average results for India show a significant positive impact on farm returns, but they mask considerable regional variations.