Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Socioeconomic Impacts of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) Cotton

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cotton

Part of the book series: Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry ((AGRICULTURE,volume 65))

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the socioeconomic impacts of Bt cotton in an international context. Bt cotton technology has already been adopted by millions of farmers around the world, including many smallholders in developing countries. On average, farmers growing Bt cotton benefit from insecticide savings, increasingly effective yields as a result of reduced crop losses, and profit gains in spite of higher seed prices. Aggregate household incomes rise, for poor and vulnerable farmers as well. Hence, Bt cotton contributes to poverty reduction and rural development. Macroeconomic modeling approaches confirm that there are also sizeable aggregate growth effects and welfare gains. In addition to these socioeconomic impacts, Bt technology is associated with important positive environmental and health externalities.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    In India, cotton harvesting is primarily a female activity, so that Bt cotton technology especially improves employment opportunities for women. It should be noted, though, that the net labor effect of Bt technology is situation specific. In China, for instance, the reduction in the number of sprays is bigger and the yield increase is smaller than in India, so that overall Bt is labor-saving there (Pray et al. 2002).

References

  • Anderson K, Valenzuela E, Jackson LA (2008) Recent and prospective adoption of genetically modified cotton: a global computable general equilibrium analysis of economic impacts. Econ Dev Cult Change 56:265–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson K, Pohl Nielsen C, Robinson S (2000) Estimating the economic effects of GMOs: the importance of policy choices and preferences. Centre for International Economic Studies Policy Discussion Papers No. 0035, Adelaide University, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates SL, Zhao JZ, Roush RT, Shelton AM (2005) Insect resistance management in gm crops: past, present and future. Nat Biotechnol 23:57–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett R, Kambhampati U, Morse S, Ismael Y (2006) Farm-level economic performance of genetically modified cotton in Maharashtra, India. Rev Agr Econ 28:59–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett R, Ismael Y, Morse S (2005) Explaining contradictory evidence regarding impacts of genetically modified crops in developing countries: varietal performance of transgenic cotton in India. J Agric Sci 143:35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett R, Morse S, Ismael Y (2003) Bt cotton, pesticides, labour and health: a case study of smallholder farmers in the makhathini flats, Republic of South Africa. Outlook Agric 32:123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes G, Barfoot P (2008) Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic and environmental effects, 1996–2006. AgBioForum 11:21–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrière Y, Ellers-Kirk C, Sisterson M, Antilla L, Whitlow M, Dennehy TJ, Tabashnik BE (2003) Long-term regional suppression of pink bollworm by Bacillus thuringiensis cotton. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:1519–1523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter J, Felsot A, Goode T, Hammig M, Onstad D, Sankula S (2002) Comparative environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived and traditional soybean, corn, and cotton crops. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • Crost B, Shankar B, Bennett R, Morse S (2007) Bias from farmer self selection in genetically modified crop productivity estimates: evidence from Indian data. J Agric Econ 58:24–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbehri A, MacDonald S (2004) Estimating the impact of transgenic Bt cotton on west and central Africa: a general equilibrium approach. World Dev 22:2049–2064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falck-Zepeda JB, Traxler G, Nelson RG (2000) Surplus distribution from the introduction of a biotechnology innovation. Am J Agric Econ 82:360–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Cornejo J, 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitt G (2003) Implementation and impacts of transgenic Bt cottons in Australia. ICAC Recorder, December 2003. 14–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Friends of the Earth (2008) Who benefits from GM crops? The rise in pesticide use. Agriculture and Food Issue 112, Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisvold G, Reeves J (2007) Economy-wide impacts of Bt cotton. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, 9–12 January, New Orleans

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • GRAIN (2004) New studies contradict FAO report and show that genetically engineered Bt cotton fails to benefit farmers. Genetic Resource Action International, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruère GP, Mehta-Bhatt P, Sengupta D (2008) Bt cotton and farmers suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00808, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertel T (1997) Global trade analysis: modeling and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossain F, Pray CE, Lu Y, Huang J, Hu R (2004) Genetically modified cotton and farmers’ health in China. Int J Occup Environ Health 10:296–303

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hu R, Huang J, Lin H, 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, van Meijl H, van Tongeren F (2004) Biotechnology boosts to crop productivity in China: trade and welfare implications. J Dev Econ 75:27–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang J, Hu R, Rozelle S, Qiao F, Pray CE (2002) Transgenic varieties and productivity of smallholder cotton farmers in China. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 46:367–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James C (2008) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2008. ISAAA Briefs No. 39, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Kathage J (2008) Impacts of genetically modified cotton in India. Master Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Khadi BM, Rao MRK, Singh M (2007) Potential to improve lives of ryots. The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, Chennai

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishna VV, Qaim M (2008) Potential impacts of Bt eggplant on economic surplus and farmers’ health in India. Agric Econ 38:167–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg E, Zilberman D (1986) The economics of damage control: why specification matters. Am J Agric Econ 68:261–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipton M (2007) Plant breeding and poverty: can transgenic seeds replicate the ‘green revolution’ as a source of gains for the poor? J Dev Stud 43:31–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maumbe BM, Swinton SM (2003) Hidden health costs of pesticide Use in Zimbabwe’s smallholder cotton growers. Soc Sci Med 57:1559–1571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morse S, Bennett R, Ismael Y (2004) Why Bt cotton pays for small-scale producers in South Africa. Nat Biotechnol 22:379–380

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naseem A, Pray C (2004) Economic impact analysis of genetically modified crops. In: Christou P, Klee H (eds) Handbook of plant biotechnology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 959–991

    Google Scholar 

  • Pray CE, Huang J, Hu R, Rozelle S (2002) Five years of Bt cotton in China – the benefits continue. Plant J 31:423–430

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pray CE, Ma D, Huang J, Qiao F (2001) Impact of Bt cotton in China. World Dev 29:813–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price GK, Lin W, Falck-Zepeda JB, 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Qaim M (2005) Agricultural biotechnology adoption in developing countries. Am J Agric Econ 87:1317–1324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim M (2003) Bt cotton in India: field trial results and economic projections. World Dev 31:2115–2127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim M, de Janvry A (2005) Bt cotton and pesticide use in Argentina: economic and environmental effects. Environ Dev Econ 10:179–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim M, de Janvry A (2003) Genetically modified crops, corporate pricing strategies, and farmers’ adoption: the case of Bt cotton in Argentina. Am J Agric Econ 85:814–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim M, Subramanian A, Naik G, Zilberman D (2006) Adoption of Bt cotton and impact variability: insights from India. Rev Agric Econ 28:48–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadashivappa P, Qaim M (2009) Bt cotton in India: development of benefits and the role of government seed price interventions. AgBioForum 12:172–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahai S, Rahman S (2003) Performance of Bt cotton in India: data from the first commercial crop. Gene Campaign, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian A, Qaim M (2009) Village-wide effects of agricultural biotechnology: the case of bt cotton in India. World Dev 37:256–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian A, Qaim M (2010) The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India. J Dev Stud, DOI: 10.1080/00220380903002954

  • Sunding D, Zivin J (2000) Insect population dynamics, pesticide use and farm-worker health. Am J Agric Econ 82:527–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor E, Adelman I (1996) Village economies: the design, estimation, and use of villagewide economic models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirtle C, Beyers L, Ismael Y, Piesse J (2003) Can GM-technologies help the poor? The impact of Bt cotton in makhathini flats, KwaZulu-Natal. World Dev 31:717–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler G, Godoy-Avila S, Falck-Zepeda J, Espinoza-Arellano J (2003) Transgenic cotton in Mexico: economic and environmental impacts. In: Kalaitzandonakes N (ed) Economic and environmental impacts of first generation biotechnologies. Kluwer, New York, pp 183–202

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2008) Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the US. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Just D, 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

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2007) World Development Report 2008: agriculture for development. World Bank, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zilberman D, Ameden H, Graff G, Qaim M (2004) Agricultural Biotechnology: productivity, biodiversity, and intellectual property rights. J Agric Food Indust Org 2, www.bepress.com/jafio/vol2/iss2/art3

Download references

Acknowledgment

The financial support for this research by the German Research Foundation (DFG) is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Goettingen, 37073, Germany

    M. Qaim

  2. University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

    A. Subramanian

  3. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

    P. Sadashivappa

Authors
  1. M. Qaim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Subramanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Sadashivappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Qaim .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Sadashivappa, P. (2010). Socioeconomic Impacts of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) Cotton. In: Cotton. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, vol 65. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04796-1_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation