Advertisement

Transgenic crops: trends and dynamics in the world and in Latin America

  • Alejandro Barragán-OcañaEmail author
  • Gerardo Reyes-Ruiz
  • Samuel Olmos-Peña
  • Hortensia Gómez-Viquez
Brief Communication
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Transgenic crops have been the recipient of strong support as well as vigorously opposed opinions since their appearance. In any case, their growth throughout the world has been remarkable, and the production and commercialization of transgenics in Latin America has been especially significant. The purpose of the present study was to analyze transgenic crop production trends around the world and the relationship between the area allocated to the cultivation of transgenic crops and the profits generated by this activity. Data concerning Latin American countries and their participation in transgenic crop production are addressed specifically. The present study used covariance analysis, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, time series analysis, Dicker–Fuller test, Durbin–Watson statistic, standardization, and different measures of central tendency. Results for the period between 1996 and 2016 show that, despite the significant increase in the area planted with this type of crops, their production presented a deterministic growth behavior, which is explained using a non-stationary model. Current data are insufficient to establish a causal relationship between cultivated hectares and their derived profits. Finally, the present study showed that production increased considerably from 2004 to 2016 in the cases of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay, as well as a positive relationship between the global area planted with transgenics and the corresponding area in these selected countries.

Keywords

Transgenic Crops Production Commercialization World Latin America 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the support provided by the National Polytechnic Institute (Instituto Politécnico Nacional), Secretariat for Research and Postgraduate Studies (Secretaría de Investigación y Posgrado), Grant Numbers 20180919 and 20180205. We also thank to CONACYT for the postdoctoral grant of Dr. Gerardo Reyes Ruiz.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

This work fulfil with all requirements from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

References

  1. Arltová M, Fedorová D (2016) Selection of unit root test on the basis of time series length and value of AR(1) parameter. Statistika 96(3):47–64Google Scholar
  2. Azadi H, Ho P (2010) Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: a review of options for food security. Biotechnol Adv 28(1):160–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrows G, Sexton S, Zilberman D (2014) Agricultural biotechnology: the promise and prospects of genetically modified crops. J Econ Perspect 28(1):99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradford K et al (2005a) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nat Biotechnol 23(4):439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradford KJ et al (2005b) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology, and genomics. Nat Biotechnol 23(4):439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler RE, Scott EM (2011) Parametric modelling-deterministic trends. In: Chandler RE, Scott EM (eds) Statistical methods for trend detection and analysis in the environmental sciences. Wiley, Bengaluru, pp 61–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen H, Lin Y (2013) Promise and issues of genetically modified crops. Curr Opin Plant Biol 16(2):255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi-Ham CL, Clark KL, Bennett AB (2010) The intellectual property landscape for gene suppression technologies in plants. Nat Biotechnol 28(1):32–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark D, Klee H, Dandekar A (2004) Despite benefits, commercialization of transgenic horticultural crops lags. Calif Agric 58(2):89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuller WA (1996) Introduction to statistical time series, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  12. Guntukula R (2018) Exports, imports and economic growth in India: evidence from cointegration and causality analysis. Theor Appl Econ XXV(2–615):221–230Google Scholar
  13. Herring RJ (2008) Opposition to transgenic technologies: ideology, interests and collective action frames. Nat Rev Genet 9:458–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howard PH (2015) Intellectual property and consolidation in the seed industry. Crop Sci 55:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ISAAA (2016) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2016. ISAAA Brief No. 52. ISAAA, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  16. James C (2014) Brief No. 49. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2014. ISAAA, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  17. Jannati NN, Sultana N, Rayhan MI (2016) Are the real GDP series in Asian countries nonstationary or nonlinear stationary? RJOAS 6(18):8–14Google Scholar
  18. Koo B, Nottenburg C, Pardey PG (2004) Plants and intellectual property: an international appraisal. Science 306(5700):1295–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kowalski SP, Ebora RV, Kryder RD, Potter RH (2002) Transgenic crops, biotechnology and ownership rights: what scientists need to know. Plant J 31(4):407–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leybourne S, Kim TH, Newbold P (2005) Examination of some more powerful modifications of the Dickey–Fuller test. J Time Ser Anal 26(3):355–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. López CS (2004) Intellectual property reform for genetically modified crops: a legal imperative. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 20(367):367–434Google Scholar
  22. Lu Z, Li M, Zhao W (2013) Stationarity testing of accumulated Ethernet traffic. Math Probl Eng 2013:1–8Google Scholar
  23. Mirakhor A, Krichene N (2014) Nonstationary time series and unit-root testing. In: Mirakhor A, Krichene N (eds) Introductory mathematics and statistics for Islamic finance. Wiley Finance Series. Wiley, Singapore, pp 355–368Google Scholar
  24. Otero G (2012) The neoliberal food regime in Latin America: state, agribusiness transnational corporations, and biotechnology. Can J Dev Stud 33(3):282–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodrigues PMM, Rubia A (2008) A note on testing for nonstationarity in autoregressive processes with level dependent conditional heteroskedasticity. Stat Pap 49(3):581–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saravia-Matus S, Saravia Matus J, Sotomayor O, Rodriguez A (2018) Investment strategies in the Latin American agri-business sub-sectors of agricultural commodities, biofuels and meat chains. JADEE 8(2):320–338Google Scholar
  27. Shumway RH, Stoffer DS (2006) Time series analysis and its applications with R examples, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Smyth S, Khachatourlans GG, Phillips PWB (2002) Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops. Nat Biotechnol 20:537–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steland A (2007) Weighted Dickey–Fuller processes for detecting stationarity. J Stat Plan Inference 137(12):4011–4030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tanaka K (2017) 8. Unit root tests in autoregressive models. In: Tanaka K (ed) Time series analysis. Nonstationary and noninvertible distribution theory. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 349–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Traxler G (2006) The GMO experience in North and South America. Int J Technol Glob 2(1/2):46–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trigo EJ, Traxler G, Pray CE, Echeverría RG (2000) Agricultural biotechnology and rural development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Implications for IDB lending. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Wright BD, Pardey PG (2006) Changing intellectual property regimes: implications for developing country agriculture. Int J Technol Glob 2(1/2):93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alejandro Barragán-Ocaña
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gerardo Reyes-Ruiz
    • 1
  • Samuel Olmos-Peña
    • 2
  • Hortensia Gómez-Viquez
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Investigaciones Económicas, Administrativas y Sociales (CIECAS)Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN)Mexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Centro Universitario UAEM Valle de ChalcoUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de México (UAEM)Valle de ChalcoMexico

Personalised recommendations