Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economic and Social Considerations in the Adoption of Bt Crops

  • Chapter
Integration of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops within IPM Programs

Part of the book series: Progress in Biological Control ((PIBC,volume 5))

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the economics of Bt crop adoption, with a special emphasis on Bt cotton. On average, the technology reduces insecticide applications and pest-related crop losses. In spite of higher seed prices, farmers realize substantial gains in cotton incomes. In India and China alone, Bt cotton produces annual welfare gains of several hundred million US dollars, with farmers being the main beneficiaries. In the USA, stronger IPR protection leads to larger benefit shares for biotechnology companies, but agricultural producers and consumers profit as well. More preliminary studies for maize, rice, and eggplant suggest that similar results can also be expected for other Bt crops. Furthermore, health benefits and aspects of consumer acceptance are analyzed. Finally, several institutional and regulatory issues are discussed, as these might have important ramifications for technology access, benefit distribution, seed market structures, and biodiversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Basu, A.K., and Qaim, M., 2007. On the adoption of genetically modified seeds in developing countries and the optimal types of government intervention. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89: 784–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, S.L., Zhao, J.Z., Roush, R.T., and Shelton, A.M., 2005. Insect resistance management in GM crops: Past, present and future. Nature Biotechnology 23: 57–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R., Morse, S., and Ismael, Y., 2003. Bt cotton, pesticides, labour and health: A case study of smallholder farmers in the Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa. Outlook on Agriculture 32: 123–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R., Kambhampati, U., Morse, S., and Ismael, Y., 2006. Farm-level economic performance of genetically modified cotton in Maharashtra, India. Review of Agricultural Economics 28: 59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, G., and Barfoot, P., 2005. GM Crops: The Global Socioeconomic and Environmental Impact – The First Nine Years. PG Economics Ltd., Dorchester, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, J., Felsot, A., Goode, T., Hammig, M., Onstad, D., and Sankula, S., 2002. Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, K.R., McCluskey, J.J., and Wahl, T.I., 2004. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food products in the developing world. AgBioForum 7: 70–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Campa, R., Hooker, D.C., Miller, J.D., Schaafsma, A.W., and Hammond, B.G., 2005. Modeling effects of environment, insect damage, and Bt genotypes on fumonisin accumulation in maize in Argentina and the Philippines. Mycopathologia 159: 539–552.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Demont, M., and Tollens, E., 2004. First impact of biotechnology in the EU: Bt maize adoption in Spain. Annals of Applied Biology 145: 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falck-Zepeda, J.B., Traxler, G., and Nelson, R.G., 2000. Surplus distribution from the introduction of a biotechnology innovation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82: 360–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and Caswell, M., 2006. The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. Economic Information Bulletin No. 11, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and Li, J., 2005. The impacts of adopting genetically engineered crops in the USA: The case of Bt corn. Selected paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Providence, RI, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florax, R.J.G.M., Travisi, C.M., and Nijkamp, P., 2005. A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32: 441–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Barbero, M., and Rodríguez-Cerezo, E., 2006. GM Crops in EU Agriculture; Case Study for the BIO4EU Project. European Commission, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, L., 2002. Likely transcendental effects of agri-biotechnology: The case of Bt hybrid corn in the Philippines. Paper presented at the Symposium on Bt Technology, University of the Philippines, Los Baños.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouse, M., Pray, C., and Schimmelpfennig, D., 2004. The distribution of benefits from Bt cotton adoption in South Africa. AgBioForum 7: 187–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouse, M., Pray, C., Schimmelpfennig, D., and Kirsten, J., 2006. Three seasons of subsistence insect-resistant maize in South Africa: Have smallholders benefited? AgBioForum 9: 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRAIN (Genetic Resource Action International), 2004. New Studies Contradict FAO Report and Show That Genetically Engineered Bt Cotton Fails to Benefit Farmers. Genetic Resource Action International, Barcelona, Spain. http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?id=129 (accessed 9 November 2007).

  • Herring, R., 2007. Stealth seeds: Biopiracy, biosafety, biopolitics. Journal of Development Studies 43: 130–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, F., Pray, C.E., Lu, Y., Huang, J., and Hu, R., 2004. Genetically modified cotton and farmers’ health in China. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 10: 296–303.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, R., Huang, J., Lin, H., and Rozelle, S., 2006. Bt cotton in China: Are secondary insect infestations offsetting the benefits in farmer fields? Paper presented at the 10th International Consortium of Agricultural Biotechnology Research Conference, June 29–July 2, Ravello, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., Hu, R., Rozelle, S., Qiao, F., and Pray, C.E., 2002. Transgenic varieties and productivity of smallholder cotton farmers in China. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 46: 367–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., Hu, R., Rozelle, S., and Pray, C., 2005. Insect-resistant GM rice in farmers’ fields: Assessing productivity and health effects in China. Science 308: 688–690.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • James, C., 1997. Global Status of Transgenic Crops in 1997. ISAAA Brief No. 5, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, C., 2007. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007. ISAAA Brief No. 37, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaniewski, W.K., and Thomas, P.E., 2004. The potato story. AgBioForum 7: 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, V.V., and Qaim, M., 2007. Estimating the adoption of Bt eggplant in India: Who benefits from public-private partnership? Food Policy 32: 523–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, V.V., and Qaim, M., 2008a. Potential impacts of Bt eggplant on economic surplus and farmers’ health in India. Agricultural Economics 38: 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, V.V., and Qaim, M., 2008b. Consumer attitudes towards GM food and pesticide residues in India. Review of Agricultural Economics 30: 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg, E., and Zilberman, D., 1986. The economics of damage control: Why specification matters. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68: 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J.L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., and Taulman, L., 2005. A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30: 28–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marasas, W.F.O., 2001. Discovery and occurrence of the fumonisins: A historical perspective. Environmental Health Perspectives 109 (Supplement 2): 239–243.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maumbe, B.M., and Swinton, S.M., 2003. Hidden health costs of pesticide use in Zimbabwe’s smallholder cotton growers. Social Science and Medicine 57: 1559–1571.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S., Bennett, R., and Ismael, Y., 2004. Why Bt cotton pays for small-scale producers in South Africa. Nature Biotechnology 22: 379–380.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Munkvold, G.P., and Hellmich, R.L., 1999. Comparison of fumonisin concentrations in kernels of transgenic Bt maize hybrids and nontransgenic hybrids. Plant Disease 83: 130–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murugkar, M., Ramaswami, B., and Shelar, M., 2006. Liberalization, Biotechnology, and the Private Seed Sector: The Case of India’s Cotton Seed Market. Mimeo, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi, India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naseem, A., and Pray, C., 2004. Economic impact analysis of genetically modified crops. In: Handbook of Plant Biotechnology, P. Christou and H. Klee, eds., Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 959–991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pray, C.E., Ma, D., Huang, J., and Qiao, F., 2001. Impact of Bt cotton in China. World Development 29: 813–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pray, C.E., Huang, J., Hu, R., and Rozelle, S., 2002. Five years of Bt cotton in China - the benefits continue. The Plant Journal 31: 423–430.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pray, C.E., Bengali, P., and Ramaswami, B., 2005. The cost of biosafety regulations: The Indian experience. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 44: 267–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pray, C.E., Huang, J., Hu, R., Wang, Q., Ramaswami, B., and Bengali, P., 2006a. Benefits and costs of biosafety regulation in India and China. In: Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy, R.E. Just, J.M. Alston and D. Zilberman, eds., Springer, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pray, C.E., Ramaswami, B., Huang, J., Bengali, P., Hu, R., and Zhang, H., 2006b. Costs and enforcement of biosafety regulation in India and China. International Journal of Technology and Globalization 2: 137–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, G.K., Lin, W., Falck-Zepeda, J.B., and Fernandez-Cornejo, J., 2003. The Size and Distribution of Market Benefits from Adopting Agricultural Biotechnology. Technical Bulletin No. 1906, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., 2003. Bt cotton in India: Field trial results and economic projections. World Development 31: 2115–2127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., 2005. Agricultural biotechnology adoption in developing countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 1317–1324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., and de Janvry, A., 2003. Genetically modified crops, corporate pricing strategies, and farmers’ adoption: The case of Bt cotton in Argentina. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 814–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., and de Janvry, A., 2005. Bt cotton and pesticide use in Argentina: Economic and environmental effects. Environment and Development Economics 10: 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., and Matuschke, I., 2005. Impacts of genetically modified crops in developing countries: A survey. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 44: 207–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., and Zilberman, D., 2003. Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science 299: 900–902.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., Yarkin, C., and Zilberman, D., 2005. Impact of biotechnology on crop genetic diversity. In: Agricultural Biodiversity and Biotechnology in Economic Development, J. Cooper, L.M. Lipper and D. Zilberman, eds., Springer, New York, USA, pp. 283–307.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Naik, G., and Zilberman, D., 2006. Adoption of Bt cotton and impact variability: Insights from India. Review of Agricultural Economics 28: 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahai, S., and Rahman, S., 2003. Performance of Bt Cotton in India: Data from the First Commercial Crop. Gene Campaign, New Delhi, India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, A.M., Zhao, J.-Z., and Roush, R.T., 2002. Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of Bt transgenic plants. Annual Review of Entomology 47: 845–881.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sunding, D., and Zivin, J., 2000. Insect population dynamics, pesticide use and farm-worker health. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82: 527–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thirtle, C., Beyers, L., Ismael, Y., and Piesse, J., 2003. Can GM-technologies help the poor? The impact of Bt cotton in Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu-Natal. World Development 31: 717–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, G., Godoy-Avila, S., Falck-Zepeda, J., and Espinoza-Arellano, J., 2003. Transgenic cotton in Mexico: Economic and environmental impacts. In: Economic and Environmental Impacts of First Generation Biotechnologies, N. Kalaitzandonakes, ed., Kluwer, New York, USA, pp. 183–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, P.C., Moore, S.E., Hall, A.J., Prentice, A.M., and Wild, C.P., 2003. Modification of immune function through exposure to dietary aflatoxin in Gambian children. Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 217–220.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Umali-Deininger, D., and Sur, M., 2006. Food safety in a globalizing world: Opportunities and challenges for India. Plenary paper presented at the 26th International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Conference, August 12–18, Gold Coast, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), 2007. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the US. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., Just, D., and Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2006. Tarnishing silver bullets: Bt technology adoption, bounded rationality and the outbreak of secondary pest infestations in China. Selected paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Long Beach, CA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, R., and Ervin, D., 2006. Precaution as an approach to technology development: The case of transgenic crops. Science, Technology and Human Values 31: 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, F., 2002. Bt or not Bt? Tools for regulatory decisions concerning genetically modified corn. Ph.D. dissertation, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, F., 2006. Mycotoxin reduction in Bt corn: Potential economic, health, and regulatory impacts. ISB News Report, September, pp. 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilberman, D., Ameden, H., Graff, G., and Qaim, M., 2004. Agricultural biotechnology: Productivity, biodiversity, and intellectual property rights. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization (online), 2 (2), article 3. Available at:http://www.bepress.com/jafio/vol2/iss2/art3.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany

    Matin Qaim

  2. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Carl E. Pray

  3. University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    David Zilberman

Authors
  1. Matin Qaim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carl E. Pray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Zilberman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matin Qaim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Reckenholzstrasse 191, 8046, Zurich, Switzerland

    Jörg Romeis

  2. Department of Entomology, Cornell University/NYSAES, Geneva, NY, 14456, USA

    Anthony M. Shelton

  3. Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695-7630, USA

    George G. Kennedy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Qaim, M., Pray, C.E., Zilberman, D. (2008). Economic and Social Considerations in the Adoption of Bt Crops. In: Romeis, J., Shelton, A.M., Kennedy, G.G. (eds) Integration of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops within IPM Programs. Progress in Biological Control, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation