Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops

Nature Biotechnology volume 28, pages 319–321 (2010)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor:

The benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops continue to be disputed, despite rapid and widespread adoption since their commercial introduction in the United States and Canada in 1995. Last year, 14 million farmers in 25 countries grew GM crops commercially, over 90% of them small farmers in developing countries1. Farmer surveys are a valuable measure of the impact of GM crops. These surveys estimate the technology's performance as it is incorporated into farmer practices, given constraints on time, access to information, differing levels of risk aversion and other factors. This analysis summarizes results from 49 peer-reviewed publications reporting on farmer surveys that compare yields and other indicators of economic performance for adopters and non-adopters of currently commercialized GM crops. The surveys cover GM insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant crops, which account for >99% of global GM crop area1. Results from 12 countries indicate, with few exceptions, that GM crops have benefitted farmers. The benefits, especially in terms of increased yields, are greatest for the mostly small farmers in developing countries, who have benefitted from the spillover of technologies originally targeted at farmers in industrialized countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Results by direction of change in economic performance (GM – conventional).

References

  1. James, C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009—The First Fourteen Years, 1996 to 2009 (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Ithaca, New York, USA, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sahai, S. & Rahman, S. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 26 July 2003, 3139–3141.

  3. Herring, R.J. Int. J. Mul. Res. Approaches 2, 145–159 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Marra, M. & Piggott, N. in Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy (eds. Just, R.E., Alston, J.M. & Zilberman, D.) 145–178 (Springer Science and Business Media, New York, 2006).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Alston, J.M., Hyde, J., Marra, M. & Mitchell, P.D. AgBioForum 5, 71–84 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Qaim, M. & Traxler, G. Agric. Econ. 32, 73–86 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Marra, M.C., Piggott, N.E. & Carlson, G.A. The Net Benefits, Including Convenience, of Roundup Ready Soybean: Results From a National Survey. Technical Bulletin 2004–3 (NSF Center for IPM, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fawcett, R. & Towery, D. Conservation Tillage and Plant Biotechnology: How New Technologies Can Improve the Environment By Reducing the Need to Plow (Conservation Tillage Information Center, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Givens, W.A. et al. Weed Technol. 23, 150–155 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Trigo, E.J. & Cap, E.J. Ten Years of Genetically Modified Crops in Argentine Agriculture (ArgenBio, Buenos Aires, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Qaim, M. & de Janvry, A. Environ. Dev. Econ. 10, 179–200 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bennett, R., Ismael, Y., Morse, S. & Shankar, B. J. Agric. Sci. 142, 665–674 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Huang, J., Hu, R., Fan, C., Pray, C.E. & Rozelle, S. AgBioForum 5, 153–166 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wang, Z. et al. Agric. Sci. China 8, 101–105 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bennett, R. et al. J. Dev. Stud. 42, 662–677 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wossink, A. & Denaux, Z.S. Agric. Syst. 90, 312–328 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cattaneo, M.G. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 7571–7576 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ismael, Y., Bennett, R. & Morse, S. AgBioForum 5, 1–5 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pray, C., Ma, D., Huang, J. & Qiao, D. World Dev. 29, 813–825 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zambrano, P., Fonseca, L.A., Cardona, I. & Magalhaes, E. in Biotechnology and Agricultural Development: Transgenic Cotton, Rural Institutions and Resource-Poor Farmers (ed. Tripp, R.) 168–199 (Routledge, London, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Naik, G. & Zilberman, D. Rev. Agr. Econ. 28, 48–58 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Morse, S., Bennett, R. & Ismael, Y. AgBioForum 10, 44–50 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Traxler, G., Godoy-Avila, S., Falck-Zepeda, J. & De Jesus Espinoza-Arellano, J. in The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agbiotech: A Global Perspective (ed. Kalaitzandonakes, N.) 183–202 (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2003).

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PO Box 1008, Boylston, Massachusetts, USA

    Janet E Carpenter

Authors
  1. Janet E Carpenter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet E Carpenter.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

This research was supported by CropLife International.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Tables 1,2,3 (PDF 143 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carpenter, J. Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops. Nat Biotechnol 28, 319–321 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0410-319

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0410-319

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing