Producer Choice

  • Ari Novy
  • Latha Nagarajan
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 37)


SECs relevant to producer choice include freedom of choice, income security, control over production, contamination of organic agriculture, and farmers’ rights to save seeds; however, producer concerns are heterogeneous in time and space.


Relevance Assessment Producer Choice Social Audit Social Impact Assessment Nuffield Council 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ali A, Abdulai A (2010) The adoption of genetically modified cotton and poverty reduction in Pakistan. J Agric Econ 61:175–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashby JA, Sperling A (1995) Institutionalizing participatory client-driven research and technology development in agriculture. Dev Chang 26:753–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates SL, Zhao J-Z, Roush RT et al (2005) Insect resistance management in GM crops: past, present and future. Nat Biotechnol 23:57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett R, Morse S, Ismael Y (2006) The economic impact of genetically modified cotton on South African smallholders: yield, profit and health effects. J Dev Stud 42:662–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birol E, Rayn E, Smale M (2007) Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach. IFPRI discussion paper 00726Google Scholar
  6. Burdge RJ, Vanclay F (1996) Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series. Impact Assess 14:59–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. COGEM (2009) Socio-economic aspects of GMOs: building blocks for an EU sustainability assessment of genetically modified crops. COGEM Report CGM/090929–01Google Scholar
  8. Crost B, Shankar B, Bennett R et al (2007) Bias from farmer self selection in genetically modified crop productivity estimates: evidence from India data. J Agric Econ 58:24–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawson E (1998) The relevance of social audit for Oxfam GB. J Bus Ethics 17:1457–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Groote H, Overholt WA, Ouma JO et al (2011) Assessing the potential economic impact of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize in Kenya. Afr J Biotechnol 10:4741–4751Google Scholar
  11. Demont M, Devos Y (2008) Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives. Trends Biotechnol 26:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devos Y, Demont M, Dillen K et al (2009) Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. Rev Agron Sustain Dev 29:11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edmeades S, Smale M (2006) A trait-based model of the potential demand for a genetically engineered food crop in a developing economy. Agric Econ 35:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Endres AB (2005) Revising seed purity laws to account for the adventitious presence of genetically modified varieties: a first step towards coexistence. J Food Law Policy 1:131–163Google Scholar
  15. Ezezika OC, Thomas F, Lavery JV et al (2009) A social audit model for agro-biotechnology initiatives in developing countries: accounting for ethical, social, cultural, and commercialization issues. J Tech Manag Innov 4:24–33Google Scholar
  16. Falck-Zepeda J, Cohen J, Meinzen-Dick R et al (2002) Biotechnology and sustainable livelihoods—findings and recommendation of an international consultation. International Service for National Agricultural Research, briefing paper no. 54Google Scholar
  17. Falck-Zepeda J, Horna D, Smale M (2008) Betting on cotton: potential payoffs and economic risks of adopting transgenic cotton in West Africa. Afr J Agric Res Econ 2:188–207Google Scholar
  18. Falck-Zepeda JB, Zambrano P (2011) Socio-economic consideration in biosafety and biotechnology decision making: the Cartagena protocol and national biosafety frameworks. Rev Policy Res 28:171–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fransen L, La Vina A, Dayrit F et al (2005) Integrating socio-economic considerations into biosafety decisions: the role of public participation. World Resources Institute, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerstetter C, Gorlach B, Neumann K et al (2007) The international treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture within the current legal regime complex on plant genetic resources. J World Intellect Prop 10:259–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Groeneveld RA, Ansink E, van de Wiel CCM et al (2011) Benefits and costs of biologically contained genetically modified tomatoes and eggplants in Italy and Spain. Sustainability 3:1265–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hareau GG, Mills BF, Norton GW (2006) The potential benefits of herbicide-resistant transgenic rice in Uruguay: lessons for small developing countries. Food Policy 31:162–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herring RJ (2007) Stealth seeds: bioproperty, biosafety, biopolitics. J Dev Stud 43:130–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hossain F, Pray CE, Lu Y et al (2004). Genetically modified cotton and farmers’ health in China. Int J Occup Environ Health 10:296–303Google Scholar
  25. Huang J, Hu R, Pray CE et al (2003) Biotechnology as an alternative to chemical pesticides: a case study of Bt cotton in China. Agric Econ 29:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kalaitzandonakes N, Magnier A, Miller D (2010) Market power and dynamic efficiency in the US seed industry. Working Paper, EMAC, University of Missouri, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelman S (1981) Cost-benefit analysis: an ethical critique. Regulation 5:33–40Google Scholar
  28. Kikulwe EM (2010). On the introduction of genetically modified bananas in Uganda: social benefits costs, and consumer preferences. PhD Thesis. Wageningen University, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  29. Krishna VV, Qaim M (2007). Estimating the adoption of Bt eggplant in India: who benefits from public-private partnership? Food Policy 32:523–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krishna VV, Qaim M (2008) Potential impact of Bt eggplant on economic surplus and farmers’ health in India. Agric Econ 38:167–180Google Scholar
  31. Kuosmanen T, Pemsl D, Wesseler J (2006) Specification and estimation of production functions involving damage control inputs: a two-stage, semiparametric approach. Am J Agric Econ 88:499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morse S, Bennett R (2008) Impact of Bt cotton on farmer livelihoods in South Africa. Int J Biotechnol 10:224–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morse S, Bennett RM, Ismael Y (2005) Bt-cotton boosts the gross margin of small-scale cotton producers in South Africa. Int J Biotechnol 7:72–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nazli H (2010) Impact of Bt cotton adoption on farmers’ wellbeing in Pakistan. PhD Thesis, University of Guelph, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  35. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2004) The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries: a follow-up discussion paper. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London. Available at
  36. Qaim M (2001) A prospective evaluation of biotechnology in semi-subsistence agriculture. Agric Econ 25:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Qaim M (2009) The economics of genetically modified crops. Annu Rev Resour Econ 1:665–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Qaim M, Traxler G (2005) Roundup ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects. Agric Econ 32:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Qaim M, Zilberman D (2003) Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science 299:900–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raney T, Matuschke I (2011) Current and potential farm-level impacts of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Frontiers of Economics and Globalization 10:55-82Google Scholar
  41. Shankar B, Thirtle C (2005) Pesticide productivity and transgenic cotton technology: the South African smallholder case. J Agric Econ 56:97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shankar B, Bennett R, Morse S (2007) Output risk aspects of genetically modified crop technology in South Africa. Econ Innov New Tech 16:277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smale M, Zambrano P, Cartel M (2006) Bales and balance: a review of the methods used to assess the economic impact of Bt cotton on farmers in developing economies. AgBioForum 9:195–212Google Scholar
  44. Smale M, Zambrano P, Falck-Zepeda J et al (2008) The economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries: a note on the methods. Int J Biotechnol 10:519–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smale M, Zambrano P, Gruère G et al (2009) Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first decade: approaches, findings and future directions, Chap. 3—Impacts on farmers. International Food Policy Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  46. Stabinsky D (2000) Bringing social analysis into a multilateral environmental agreement: social impact assessment and the biosafety protocol. J Environ Dev 9:260–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Takeshima H, Gruère GP (2011) Pressure group competition and GMO regulations in Sub-Saharan Africa—insights from the Becker model. J Agric Food Ind Organ. doi:10.2202/1542-0485.1325Google Scholar
  48. Third World Network (2008) Assessing the socio-economic, cultural and ethical impacts of GMOs. Third World Network briefings for MOP 4–3Google Scholar
  49. Vanclay F (2003) Social impact assessment: international principles. International association for impact assessment, special publication series no 2Google Scholar
  50. Vitale J, Boyer T, Uaiene R et al (2007) The economic impacts of introducing Bt technology in smallholder cotton production systems of West Africa: a case study from Mali. AgBioForum 10:71–84Google Scholar
  51. Yenagi BS, Patil VC, Biradar DP et al (2011) Refuge cropping systems for Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) resistance management in BT cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Acad J Entomol 4:102–107Google Scholar
  52. Yorobe JM Jr, Quicoy CB (2006) Economic impact of Bt corn in the Philippines. Philipp Agric Sci 89:258–267Google Scholar
  53. Zimmermann R, Qaim M (2004) Potential health benefits of golden rice: a Philippine case study. Food Policy 29:147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United States Botanic GardenWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural HistoryWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Agriculture, Food and Resource EconomicsRutgers UniversityNew JerseyUSA
  4. 4.International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC)WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations