What are the socio-economic impacts of genetically modified crops worldwide? A systematic map protocol

Environmental Evidence

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Garcia Yi, Jaqueline ^a   Lapikanonth, Tiptunya ^b   Vionita, Hanum ^b   Vu, Hanh ^b   Yang, Shuang ^b   Zhong, Yating ^b   Li, Yifei ^b   Nagelschneider, Veronika ^b   Schlindwein, Birgid ^a   Wesseler, Justus ^a,c  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b Program on Sustainable Resource Management   (Germany)

^c WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Chinese; Crop; English; French; Genetically modified organism; German; Portuguese; Socio economics impacts; Spanish; Systematic map

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941634559     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20472382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2047-2382-3-24     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Smale M, Zambrano P, Gruere G, Falck-Zepeda J, Matuschke I, Horna D, Nagarajan L, Yerramareddy I, Jones H: Measuring the Economic Impacts of Transgenic Crops in Developing Agriculture during the First Decade. Approaches, Findings and Future Directions. Washington: USA: Food Policy Review 10. IFPRI; 2009.
2. Chen H, Lin Y: Promise and issues of genetically modified crops. Curr Opin Plant Biol 2013, 16: 1-6. 10.1016/j.pbi.2013.01.002
3. National Research Council Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability. Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources. In The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on farm Sustainability in the United States. USA: The National Academic Press; 2010.
4. Smale M, Zambrano P, Falck-Zepeda J, Gruere G: Parables: Applied Economic Literature about the Impact of Genetically Engineered Crop Varieties in Developing Countries. Washington: USA: EPT Discussion Paper 158. IFPRI; 2006.
5. Bragge P, Clavisi O, Turner T, Tavender E, Collie A, Gruen R: The global evidence mapping initiative: scoping research in broad topic areas. Med Res Methodol 2011, 11: 1-12. 10.1186/1471-2288-11-1
6. Hall C, Knight B, Ringrose S, Knox O: What have been the farm-level economic impacts of the global cultivation of GM crops? Systematic Review. Environ Evid 2013, CEE Review 11-002. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CEE11-002.pdf
7. GRACE: GMO risk assessment and communication of evidence - GRACE. (Description of Work - Annex I, Part B). FP7 Collaborative Project. 2012.
8. GRACE: GRACE Stakeholder Consultation on Good Review Practice in GMO Impact Assessment. Part 2: Stakeholder priorities for review questions- Review questions on socioeconomic impacts. 2013.
9. van Weijen D: The language of (future) scientific communication. [ http://www.researchtrends.com/issue-31-november-2012/the-language-of-future-scientific-communication/ ]
10. ISAAA: Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops. 2012. [ http://www.isaaa.org/ ]
11. Zambrano P, Maldonado J, Mendoza S, Ruiz L, Fonseca L, Cardona I: Women Cotton Farmers. Their Perceptions and Experience with Transgenic Varieties. A Case Study for Colombia. Washington, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute. Discussion Paper 01118; 2011.
12. Yoo D: Individual and Social Learning in Bio-Technology Adoption: The Case of GM Corn in the U.S. Seattle, USA: Paper presented at Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting; 2012.
13. Uematsu H, Mishra A: Net Effect of Education on Technology Adoption by U.S. Farmers. Orlando, USA: Paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting; 2010.
14. Jaramillo P, Useche P, Barhan B, Foltz J: The State Contingent Approach to Farmers' Valuation and Adoption of New Biotech Crops: Nitrogen-Fertilizer Saving and Drought Tolerance Traits. Denver, Colorado: Paper presented at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting; 2010.
15. Gaurav S, Mishra S: To Bt or not to Bt? Risk and Uncertainty Considerations in Technology Assessment. Mumbai, India: Working paper from Indira Gandhi Institute of Development; 2012.
16. Birol E, Villalba E, Smale M: Farmer preferences for millpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach. Environ Dev 2009, 14: 521-540. 10.1017/S1355770X08004944
17. Krishna V, Qaim V: Bt cotton and sustainability of pesticide reductions in India. Agric Syst 2012, 107: 47-55.
18. Mutuc M, Rejesus R, Pan S, Yorobe J: Impact assessment of Bt corn adoption in the Philippines. J Agric Appl Econ 2012, 44: 117-135.
19. Huang J, Hu R, Rozelle S, Qiao F, Pray C: Transgenic varieties and productivity of smallholder cotton farmers in China. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 2002, 46: 367-387. 10.1111/1467-8489.00184
20. Bennett R, Morse S, Ismael Y: The economic impact of genetically modified cotton on South African smallholders: yield, profit and health effects. J Dev Stud 2006, 42: 662-677. 10.1080/00220380600682215
21. Anderson K, Jackson L, Nielsen C: Genetically Modified Rice Adoption: Implications for Welfare and Poverty Alleviation. World Bank Policy Research. Working Paper 3380; 2004.
22. Lipton M: Plant breeding and poverty: can transgenic seeds replicate the 'Green Revolution' as a source of gains for the poor? J Dev Stud 2007, 43: 31-62. 10.1080/00220380601055510
23. Davis A, Mitoh T: Dying in the USA and Japan: selected legal and ethical issues. Int Nurs Rev 1999,46(5):135-139. 10.1046/j.1466-7657.46.no.5issue347.10.x
24. Groeneveld R, Wesseler J, Berentsen P: Dominos in the dairy: an analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming. Ecol Econ 2013, 86: 107-116.
25. Consmüller N, Beckmann V, Petrick M: Identifying driving factors for the establishment of cooperative GMO-free zones in Germany. Foz do Iguacu, Brazil: Paper presented at Conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economists; 2012.
26. Gray E, Ancev T, Drynan R: Coexistence of GM and non-GM crops with endogenously determined separation. Ecol Econ 2011, 70: 2486. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.005
27. Falck-Zepeda J: Coexistence, genetically modified biotechnologies and biosafety: implications for developing countries. Am J Agric Econ 2006, 88: 1200-1208. 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2006.00933.x
28. Wilson W, Dahl B: Costs and risks of testing and segregating genetically modified wheat. Rev Agric Econ 2005, 27: 212-228. 10.1111/j.1467-9353.2005.00222.x
29. Coleno F, Angevin F, Lecroart B: A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and crosspollination risk management. Agric Syst 2009, 101: 49-56. 10.1016/j.agsy.2009.03.002
30. Moss C, Schmitz T, Schmitz A: The brave new world: imperfect information, segregation costs, and genetically modified organisms. Agrarwirtschaft 2004, 53: 303-308.
31. Gryson N, Eeckhout T, Neijens T: Cost and Benefits for the Segregation of GM and Non-GM Compound Feed. Gent, Belgium: Paper presented at XII EAAE Congress; 2008.
32. Kalaitzandonakes N, Matsbarger R, Barnes J: Global identity preservation costs in agricultural supply chains. Can J Agric Econ 2001, 49: 605-615. 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2001.tb00330.x
33. Murphy J, Yanacopulos H: Understanding governance and networks: EU-US interactions and the regulation of genetically modified organisms. Geoforum 2005, 36: 593-606. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.10.001
34. Smyth S, Phillips P: Competitors co-operating; establishing a supply chain to manage genetically modified canola. Int Food Agribus Man 2001, 4: 51-66. 10.1016/S1096-7508(01)00070-2
35. Aerni P, Scholderer J, Ermen D: How Would Swiss Consumers Decide if they had Freedom of Choice? Evidence from a Field Study with Organic, Conventional and GM Corn Bread, 36. Washington: USA: Food Policy Review 10. IFPRI; 2011:830-838.
36. Costa-Font M, Tranter R, Gil J, Jones P, Gylling M: Do Defaults Matter? Willingness to Pay to Avoid GM Food vis-à-vis Organic and Conventional Food in Denmark, Great Britain and Spain. Edinburgh, Scotland: Paper presented at the 84th Conference of Agricultural Economics; 2010.
37. Kikulke E, Birol E, Wesseler J, Falck-Zepeda J: A latent class approach to investigating demand for genetically modified banana in Uganda. Agric Econ 2011, 42: 547-560. 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00529.x
38. Donaghy P, Rolfe J, Bennett J: Quasi-Option Values for Enhanced Information Regarding Genetically Modified Foods. Melbourne, Australia: Paper presented at the 48th Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society; 2004.
39. Lusk J, House L, Valli C, Jaeger S, Moore M, Morrow B, Traill B: Consumer welfare effects of introducing and labeling genetically modified foods. Econ Lett 2005, 88: 382-388. 10.1016/j.econlet.2005.03.009
40. Brookes G, Barfoot P: GM Crops: Global Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts 1996-2011. UK: PG Economics Ltd; 2013.
41. Ando A, Khanna M: Environmental costs and benefits of genetically modified crops. Implications for regulatory strategies. Am Behav Sci 2000, 44: 435-463. 10.1177/00027640021956279
42. Raven P: Does the use of transgenic plants diminish or promote biodiversity? New Biotechnol 2010,27(5):528-533. 10.1016/j.nbt.2010.07.018
43. Batie S: The environmental impacts of genetically modified plants: challenges to decision making. Am J Agric Econ 2003, 85: 1107-1111. 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2003.00516.x
44. Knox O, Hall C, McVittie A, Walker R, Knight B: A systematic review of the environmental impacts of GM crop cultivation as reported from 2006 to 2011. Food Nutr Sci 2013, 4: 28-44.
45. Mannion A, Morse S: Biotechnology in agriculture: agronomic and environmental considerations and reflections based on 15 years of GM crops. Prog Phys Geogr 2012, 36: 747-763. 10.1177/0309133312457109
46. Lemaux P: Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist's analysis of the issues (Part II). Annu Rev Plant Biol 2009, 60: 511-559. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092013
47. FAO: The State of Food Insecurity in the World. The Multiple Dimensions of Food Security. Rome: FAO; 2013.
48. Ruane J, Sonnino A: Agricultural biotechnologies in developing countries and their possible contribution to food security. J Biotechnol 2011, 156: 356-363. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2011.06.013
49. Carletto C, Zezza A, Banerjee R: Towards better measurement of household food security: harmonizing indicators and the role of household surveys. Global Food Security 2013, 2: 30-40. 10.1016/j.gfs.2012.11.006
50. Dibden J, Gibbs D, Cocklin C: Framing GM crops as a food security solution. J Rural Stud 2013, 29: 59-70.
51. Beyer F, Wright K: Can we prioritise which databases to search? A case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management. Health Inf Libr J 2012, 30: 49-58.
52. Delgado E, Repiso R: The impact of scientific journals of communication: comparing Google Scholar metrics, Web of Science and Scopus. Comunicar 2013, 41: 45-52.
53. Gehanno J, Rollin L, Darmoni S: Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Med Informat Decis Making 2013, 13: 1-5. 10.1186/1472-6947-13-1
54. Giustini D, Boulus M: Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. Online J Public Health Inform 2013, 5: 1-9.
55. BASE: About BASE. [ http://www.base-search.net/about/en/index.php ]
56. Hammerstrom K, Wade A, Jorgensen A: Searching for Studies: A Guide to Information Retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews. UK: The Campbell Collaboration; 2010.
57. Tripney J, Newman M, Bird K, Thomas J, Kalra N, Bangpan M, Vigurs C: Understanding the drivers, impact and value of engagement in culture and sport: Technical report for the systematic review and database. UK: The Case Programme; 2010.