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

Environmental Evidence

Justus Wesseler¹  Birgid Schlindwein²  Veronika Nagelschneider³  Yifei Li³  Yating Zhong³  Shuang Yang³  Hanh Vu³  Hanum Vionita³  Tiptunya Lapikanonth³  Jaqueline Garcia-Yi⁴ 

[1] Chair of Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706KN Wageningen, The Netherlands;Library of the Technical University of Munich, Branch Weihenstephan, Maximus-von-Imhof-Forum 1-3, 85354 Freising, Germany;Program on Sustainable Resource Management, Hans-Carl-von- Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany;Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Chair of Agricultural and Food Economics, Alte Akademie 12, 85354 Freising, Germany

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

Others  :  1092978
DOI  :  10.1186/2047-2382-3-24

 received in 2014-02-07, accepted in 2014-09-25,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Genetically modified (GM) crops have generated a great deal of controversy. Since commercially introduced to farmers in 1996, the global area cultivated with GM crops has increased 94-fold. The rapid adoption of GM technology has had substantial socio-economic impacts which a vast amount of technical and non-technical literature has addressed in the last two decades. However, contradictory results between individual studies abound. Extensive and transparent reviews concerning this contentious and complex issue could help promote evidence-based dialogue among the diverse parties involved.

Methods

This protocol specifies the methodology for identifying, evaluating, and mapping evidence related to the main review question: what are the socio-economic impacts of genetically modified crops worldwide? This question has been subdivided into the following topics: (a) farm-level impacts; (b) impacts of coexistence regulations; (c) impacts along the supply chain; (d) consumer-level impacts; (e) impacts on food security; and (f) environmental economic impacts. The search strategy includes the identification of primary studies from general scientific databases; global, regional, and national specialist databases; an on-line search engine; institutional websites; journal websites; subject experts/researchers; and serendipity. Searches will be conducted in six languages (Chinese, English, French, German, Portuguese, and Spanish). Identified studies will be screened for inclusion/exclusion criteria by a group of multi-language reviewers. Finally, pre-defined data from the studies will be extracted, mapped, and presented in a report. Potential research gaps will be identified and discussed, and the review process will be documented in an open-access database (i.e. CADIMA, http://www.cadima.info/ webcite).

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Garcia-Yi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

【 参考文献 】

• [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.
• [3]National Research Council: The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on farm Sustainability in the United States. USA: The National Academic Press; 2010. [Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability. Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources]
• [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. BioMed Central Full Text
• [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 webcite
• [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/ webcite]
• [10]ISAAA: Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops. 2012. [http://www.isaaa.org/ webcite]
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [23]Davis A, Mitoh T: Dying in the USA and Japan: selected legal and ethical issues. Int Nurs Rev 1999, 46(5):135-139.
• [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.
• [27]Falck-Zepeda J: Coexistence, genetically modified biotechnologies and biosafety: implications for developing countries. Am J Agric Econ 2006, 88:1200-1208.
• [28]Wilson W, Dahl B: Costs and risks of testing and segregating genetically modified wheat. Rev Agric Econ 2005, 27:212-228.
• [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.
• [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.
• [33]Murphy J, Yanacopulos H: Understanding governance and networks: EU-US interactions and the regulation of genetically modified organisms. Geoforum 2005, 36:593-606.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [42]Raven P: Does the use of transgenic plants diminish or promote biodiversity? New Biotechnol 2010, 27(5):528-533.
• [43]Batie S: The environmental impacts of genetically modified plants: challenges to decision making. Am J Agric Econ 2003, 85:1107-1111.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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. BioMed Central Full Text
• [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 webcite]
• [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.