Socio-economic research on genetically modified crops: a study of the literature
The importance of socio-economic impacts (SEI) from the introduction and use of genetically modified (GM) crops is reflected in increasing efforts to include them in regulatory frameworks. Aiming to identify and understand the present knowledge on SEI of GM crops, we here report the findings from an extensive study of the published international scientific peer-reviewed literature. After applying specified selection criteria, a total of 410 articles are analysed. The main findings include: (i) limited empirical research on SEI of GM crops in the scientific literature; (ii) the main focus of the majority of the published research is on a restricted set of monetary economic parameters; (iii) proportionally, there are very few empirical studies on social and non-monetary economic aspects; (iv) most of the research reports only short-term findings; (v) the variable local contexts and conditions are generally ignored in research methodology and analysis; (vi) conventional agriculture is the commonly used comparator, with minimal consideration of other substantially different agricultural systems; and (vii) there is the overall tendency to frame the research upon not validated theoretical assumptions, and to over-extrapolate small-scale and short-term specific results to generalized conclusions. These findings point to a lack of empirical and comprehensive research on SEI of GM crops for possible use in decision-making. Broader questions and improved methodologies, assisted by more rigorous peer-review, will be required to overcome current research shortcomings.
KeywordsSocio-economic impacts Genetically modified crops Research methods
Genetically modified organisms
Research and development
Georgina Catacora-Vargas did not receive any specific financial support for the research involved in the preparation of this article. Rosa Binimelis acknowledges partial financial support for her work at The Agri/Cultures Project funded by the Norwegian Research Council (Grant No. 231146). Anne Ingeborg Myhr worked on this manuscript as part of her regular activities at GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, without any specific grant. Before retirement, Brian Wynne worked on this research as part of his regular Lancaster University activities. The co-authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.
- Areal, F. J., L. Riesgo, and E. Rodríguez-Cerezo. 2013. Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: A meta-analysis. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 153: 7–33.Google Scholar
- Arunachalam, V., and S. B. Ravi. 2003. Conceived conclusions in favour of GM cotton? A riposte to a paper in Science. Current Science 85 (8): 1117–1119.Google Scholar
- Asante, D. K. 2008. Genetically modified food. The dilemma of Africa. African Journal of Biotechnology 7 (9): 1204–1211.Google Scholar
- Barwale, F. B., V. R. Gadwal, U. Zehr, and B. Zehr. 2004. Prospects for Bt cotton technology in India. AgBioForum 7 (1–2): 23–26.Google Scholar
- BCH-CBD (Biosafety Clearing House of the Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety). Living Modified Organisms (LMO) Registry. 2016. http://bch.cbd.int/database/lmo-registry/. Accessed 14 May 2016.
- Bereano, P. 2012. Why the US should support full implementation of Article 26, the consideration of socio-economic consequences of LMOs. ECO (43). Catacora: CBD Alliance.Google Scholar
- Berger, G. U., and D. P. Braga. 2009. Report on Environmental and Food Biosafety of Soybean MON 87701 x MON 89788. Sao Paulo: Monsanto do Brazil.Google Scholar
- Bryant, K. J., R. L. Nichols, C. T. Allen, N. R. Benson, F. M. Bourland, L. D. Earnest, M. S. Kharboutli, K. Smith, and E. P. Webster. 2003. Transgenic cotton cultivars: An economic comparison in Arkansas. International Journal of Cotton Science 7: 194–204.Google Scholar
- Catacora-Vargas, G. 2012. Socio-economic considerations under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Insights for effective implementation. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 14 (3): 1–17.Google Scholar
- Catacora-Vargas, G., P. Galeano, S. Agapito-Tenfen, D. Aranda, T. Palau, and R. O. Nodari. 2012. Soybean production in the Southern Cone of the Americas: Update on land and pesticide use. Cochabamba: GenØk/UFSC/REDES-AT/BASE-Is.Google Scholar
- COGEM (Commissie Genetishe Modificatie). 2009. Socio-economic aspects of GMO’s. Building blocks for an EU sustainability assessment of genetically modified crops. Report CGM/090929–01. http://www.cogem.net/index.cfm/en/publications/publicatie/socio-economic-aspects-of-gmo-s Accessed 6 Mar 2016.
- Danish Council of Ethics. 2012. Report on bioenergy, food production, and ethics in a globalised world. Copenhagen: Danish Council of Ethics.Google Scholar
- DFID (United Kingdom Department for International Development). 2014. Economic development for shared prosperity and poverty reduction: A strategic framework. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/276859/Econ-development-strategic-framework.pdf Accessed 15 Aug 2016.
- EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). 2012. Scientific opinion on application (EFSA-GMO-NL-2009–73) for the placing on the market of insect-resistant and herbicide tolerant genetically modified soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No. 182. Parma: EFSA.Google Scholar
- Ervin, D. E., and R. Welsh. 2006. Environmental effects of genetically modified crops: Differentiated risk assessment and management. In Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy, eds. R. E. Just, E. Julian, M. Alston, and D. Zilberman, 301–326. Boston: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- European Environment Council. 2008. Council conclusions on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 2912th Environment Council Meeting. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/envir/104509.pdf Accessed 25 Sept 2016.
- Falck-Zepeda, J. B., and M. Gouse. 2017. Regulation of GMOs in developing countries: Why socio-economic considerations matter for decision-making. In Genetically modified organisms in developing countries, eds. A. Adenle, E. Jane, Morris, and D. J. Murphy, 91–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Felt, U., B. Wynne, M. Callon, M. E. Gonçalves, S. Jasanoff, M. Jepsen, P. B. Joly, Z. Konopasek, S. May, C. Neubauer, A. Rip, K. Siune, A. Stirling, and M. Tallacchini. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. European Commission, Science and Governance Expert Group Report. EUR 22750. Brussels: DG Research.Google Scholar
- Flyvbjerg, B. 2005. Social science that matters. Foresight Europe 2: 38–42.Google Scholar
- Francescon, S. 2006. The impact of GMOs on poor countries: A threat to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals? Biology Forum/Rivista di Biologia 99: 381–394.Google Scholar
- Freese, B. 2012. Comments to USDA APHIS on Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Plant Pest Risk Assessment for Dow AgroSciences Petition (09–349-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Event DAS-68416-4: 2,4-D-and glufosinate-resistant soybean. Washington D.C.: The Center for Food Safety.Google Scholar
- Gouse, M., J. Kirsten, B. Shankar, and C. Thirtle. 2005. Bt cotton in KwaZulu Natal: Technological triumph but institutional failure. AgBiotechNet 7 (134): 1–7.Google Scholar
- Greiter, A., M. Miklau, A. Heissenberger, and H. Gaugitsch. 2011. Socio-economic aspects in the assessment of GMOs: Options for action. REP-0354. Vienna: Environment Agency Austria. http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/publikationen/REP0354.pdf Accessed 6 Mar 2016.
- Gurian-Sherman, D. 2009. Failure to yield: Evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge: Union of Concerned Scientists.Google Scholar
- Harremoës, P., D. Gee, M. MacGarvin, A. Stirling, J. Keys, B. Wynne, S. Guedes Vas, eds. 2001. Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle in the 20th century. vol. 1. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
- Heinemann, J. A. 2009. Hope not hype: The future of agriculture guided by the international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science, and technology for development. Penang: TWN.Google Scholar
- Hobart, M., ed. 1993. An anthropological critique of development: The growth of ignorance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development). 2009. Agriculture at crossroad. Global report. Washington D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Jasanoff, S., ed. 2004. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kaphengst, T., N. El Benni, C. Evans, R. Finger, S. Herbert, S. Morse, and N. Stupak. 2011. Final report. Assessment of the economic performance of GM crops worldwide. ENV.B.3/ETU/2009/0010. Reading: University of Reading/ETH.Google Scholar
- Knezevic, S. Z. 2007. Herbicide tolerant crops: 10 years later. Maydica 52 (3): 245–250.Google Scholar
- Leach, M., I. Scoones, and A. Stirling. 2010. Dynamic sustainabilities: Technology, environment, social justice. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
- Mackenzie, R., F. Burhenne-Guilmin, A. G. M. La Viña, J. D. Werksman, A. Ascencio, J. Kinderlerer, K. Kummer, and R. Tapper. 2004. An explanatory guide to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Cambridge: IUCN.Google Scholar
- Mannion, A., and S. Morse. 2013. GM crops 1996–2012: A review of agronomic, environmental and socio-economic impacts. Working Paper 04/13. Reading: University of Reading/University of Surrey.Google Scholar
- Mugo, S., H. De Groote, D. Bergvinson, M. Mulaa, J. Songa, and S. Gichuki. 2005. Developing Bt maize for resource-poor farmers: Recent advances in the IRMA project. African Journal of Biotechnology 4 (13): 1490–1504.Google Scholar
- NASEM (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine). 2016. Genetically engineered crops: Experiences and prospects. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Nkwake, A. M. 2012. Working with assumptions in international development program evaluation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Nordgård, L., I. Grønsberg, M. Cuhra, M. Iversen, and R. Binimelis. 2013. Assessment of the technical dossier submitted under EFSA/GMO/NL/2012/108 for approval of transgenic soy, MON 87708 x MON 89788, Monsanto Company. Tromsø: GenØk – Centre for Biosafety.Google Scholar
- NRC (National Research Council) 2010. Committee on the impact of biotechnology on farm-level economics and sustainability. The Impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Rip, A. 2002. Co-evolution of science, technology and society. In Expert review for the Bundesministerium Bildung und Forschung’s Förderinitiatieve, Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, as managed by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Enschede: Twente University.Google Scholar
- Rudy, A. P., D. Coppin, J. Konefal, B. T. Shaw, T. T. Eyck, C. Harris, and L. Busch. 2007. Universities in the Age of Corporate Science: The UC Berkeley-Novartis Controversy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
- SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 2000. Text of the Cartagena protocol. Montreal: CBD.Google Scholar
- SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 2003. The Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Record of the negotiations. Montreal: CBD.Google Scholar
- SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 2014. Global overview of information on socioeconomic considerations arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Ad-hoc Technical Expert Group on Socioeconomic Considerations. Report UNEP/CBD/BS/AHTEG-SEC/1/2. Montreal: CBD.Google Scholar
- Scott, J. 1998. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Smale, M., P. Zambrano, G. Gruère, J. B. Falck-Zepeda, I. Matuschke, D. Horna, L. Nagarajan, I. Yerramareddy, and H. Jones. 2009. Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first decade: Approaches, findings, and future directions. Washington D.C.: IFPRI.Google Scholar
- Spök, A. 2010. Assessing socio-economic impacts of GMOs, issues to consider for policy development: Final report. Vienna: Federal Ministry of Health; Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment, and Water Management.Google Scholar
- The World Bank. 2008. World development report. Agriculture for development https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/WDR_00_book.pdf Accessed 15 Aug 2016.
- Thomas, H., M. Fressoli, and A. Lalouf. 2008. Introducción. In Sociología de la tecnología. Actos, actores y artefactos, eds. H. Thomas, and A. Buch, 9–17. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Quilmes.Google Scholar
- Thompson, J., E. Millstone, I. Scoones, A. Ely, F. Marshall, E. Shah, S. Stagl, and J. Wilkinson. 2007. Agri-food system dynamics: Pathways to sustainability in an era of uncertainty (No. 4). Brighton: STEPS.Google Scholar
- UN (United Nations). 2007. 61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 2 July 2016.
- WEF (World Economic Forum). 2012. Putting the new vision for agriculture into action: A transformation is happening. Geneva: WEF.Google Scholar
- Wynne, B., and A. Stirling. 2007. Normalising Europe through Science: Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution. Chapter 3. In Taking European knowledge society seriously. European Commission, Science and Governance Expert Group Report. EUR 22750, rapporteur, ed. U. Felt and B. Wynne, 31–42. Brussels: DG Research.Google Scholar