Global income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2013

REFERENCES

• Bennett R, Ismael Y, Kambhampati U, Morse S. Economic impacts of GM cotton in India. AgBioforum 2004; 7(3).
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G. The farm level impact of using Bt maize in Spain. ICABR conference paper. Ravello, Italy; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G. The farm level impact of using Roundup Ready soybeans in Romania. Agbioforum 2005; 8(4):235–241. www.agbioforum.org.
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G. The benefits of adopting GM insect resistant (Bt) maize in the EU: First results from 1998-2006. International Journal of Biotechnology 2008; 10(2–3):148–166.
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic effects 1996-2007, Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, Agbioforum 2009; 12(2):184-208.
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. The income and production effects of biotech crops globally 1996-2009, International Journal of Biotechnology, 2011; 12(1/2):1-49; http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBT.2011.042680.
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. The income and production effects of biotech crops globally 1996-2010, GM Crops 2012; 3(4):265-273; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.20097.
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. The income and production effects of biotech crops globally 1996-2011, GM Crops 2013; 4(1):1-10; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.22748.
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Economic impact of GM crops: the global income and production effects 1996-2012, GM Crops 2014; 5(1):65-75; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.28278.
   Google Scholar
• Canola Council of Canada. An agronomic & economic assessment of transgenic canola, Taylor & Francis, Canada. 2001. Available at: www.canola-council.org.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter J, Gianessi L. Agricultural Biotechnology: updated benefit estimates. Washington, USA: Taylor & Francis; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• CSIRO. The cotton consultants Australia 2005 Bollgard II comparison report. Australia: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Doyle B. The Performance of Roundup Ready cotton 2001-2002 in the Australian cotton sector. Armidale, Australia: Taylor & Francis; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Doyle B. The performance of Ingard and Bollgard II Cotton in Australia during the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 seasons. Armidale, Australia: Taylor & Francis; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Elena M. Economic advantages of transgenic cotton in Argentina. INTA; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Falck Zepeda J, Sanders A, Trabanino R, Medina O, Batallas-Huacon R. Small 'resource poor' countries taking advantage of the new bio-economy and innovation: the case of insect protected and herbicide tolerant corn in Honduras. Paper presented to the 13^th ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy; June 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Falck Zepeda J, Sanders A, Trabanino R, Medina O, Batallas-Huacon R. Caught between Scylla and Charybdis: impact estimation issues from the early adoption of GM maize in Honduras. Agbioforum 2012; 15(2) 138-151.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandez W, Paz R, Zambrano P, Zepeda JF. GM soybeans in Bolivia. Paper presented to the 13^th ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy, June 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer J, Tozer P. Evaluation of the environmental and economic impact of Roundup Ready canola in the Western Australian crop production system. 2009. Curtin University of Technology Technical Report 11/2009.
   Google Scholar
• Fitt G. Deployment and impact of transgenic Bt cotton in Australia, reported in James C (2001). Global review of commercialised transgenic crops: 2001 feature: Bt cotton. ISAAA; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of insect resistant cotton in Brazil, 2009 and 2010, Celeres, Brazil. Available at: www.celeres.co.br.
   Google Scholar
• Galveo A. Unpublished data on first survey findings of impact of insect resistant corn (first crop) in Brazil, 2009, Celeres, Brazil. Available at: www.celeres.co.br.
   Google Scholar
• Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of insect resistant corn and herbicide tolerant soybeans in Brazil, 2010, Celeres, Brazil. www.celeres.co.br.
   Google Scholar
• Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of GM crops in Brazil 2011, Celeres, Brazil. www.celeres.co.br.
   Google Scholar
• Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of GM crops in Brazil 2012, Celeres, Brazil. www.celeres.co.br.
   Google Scholar
• George Morris Centre. Economic & environmental impacts of the commercial cultivation of glyphosate tolerant soybeans in Ontario. Unpublished report for Monsanto Canada; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Gomez-Barbero and Rodriguez-Cereozo. The adoption of GM insect-resistant Bt maize in Spain: An empirical approach. 10^th ICABR conference on agricultural biotechnology, Ravello, Italy; July 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Gonsales L. Harnessing the benefits of biotechnology: the case of Bt corn in the Philippines. Laguna, Philippines: Taylor & Francis; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Gonsales L. Modern Biotechnology and Agriculture: a history of the commercialisation of biotechnology maize in the Philippines. Los Banos, Philippines: Taylor & Francis, 2009. ISBN 978-971-91904-8-6.
   Google Scholar
• Gouse M, Piesse J, Thirtle C. Output & labour effect of GM maize and minimum tillage in a communal area of Kwazulu-Natal. Journal of Development Perspectives 2006; 2:2.
   Google Scholar
• Gouse M, Pray C, Kirsten J, Schimmelpfennig D. A GM subsistence crop in Africa: The case of Bt white maize in S Africa. Int Journal Biotechnology 2005; 7( 1/2/3); http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBT.2005.006447.
   Google Scholar
• Gouse M, Pray C, Kirsten J, Schimmelpfennig D. Three seasons of insect resistant maize in South Africa: have small farmers benefited. AgBioforum 2006; 9(1): 15-22.
   Google Scholar
• Gusta M. Economic benefits of GMHT canola for producers. 2009. College of Biotechnology Working Paper, University of Saskatchewan.
   Google Scholar
• Herring R, Rao C. On the 'failure of Bt cotton': Analysing a decade of experience. Economic and Political Weekly 2012; XLVII(18).
   Google Scholar
• Hudson D. Evaluation of agronomic, environmental, economic and co-existence impacts following the introduction of GM canola in Australia 2010-2012. Paper presented to the 2012 GMCC conference, Lisbon, Portugal, November 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchison W, Burkness E, Mitchell P, Moon R, Leslie T, Fleicher S, Abrahamson M, Hamilton K, Steffey K, Gray M, et al. Area-wide suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-bt maize growers. Science, 2010, Vol 330, 222-225. www.sciencemag.org; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1190242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IMRB. Socio-economic benefits of Bollgard and product satisfaction (in India). Mumbai, India: IMRB International; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• IMRB. Socio-economic benefits of Bollgard and product satisfaction (in India). Mumbai, India: Taylor & Francis; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Ismael Y, Bennet R, Morse S. Benefits of bt cotton use by smallholder farmers in South Africa. Agbioforum 2002; 5(1): 1-5.
   Google Scholar
• James C. Global review of commercialized transgenic crops 2001: Feature Bt cotton. ISAAA No 26; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• James C. Global review of commercialized transgenic crops 2002: feature Bt maize. ISAAA 2003; No 29.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson S, Strom S. Quantification of the impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2006. Washington: Taylor & Francis. Available at: www.ncfap.org.
   Google Scholar
• Jon-Joseph A Q, Sprague CL. Weed management in wide-and narrow-row glyphosate resistant sugar beet. Weed Technology 2010; 24: 523-528; http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-10-00033.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan M. Roundup Ready sugar beet in America. British Sugar Beet Review Winter 2008; 76(4): 16-19.
   Google Scholar
• Kirsten J, Gouse M. Bt cotton in South Africa: adoption and the impact on farm incomes amongst small-scale and large-scale farmers, ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Kniss A. Farm scale analysis of glyphosate resistant sugar beet in the year of commercial introduction in Wyoming. 2009. University of Wyoming.
   Google Scholar
• Kouser S, Qaim M. Bt cotton, damage control and optimal levels of pesticide use in Pakistan. Environment Development Economics 2014; 19(6):704–723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kouser S, Qaim M. Valuing financial, health and environmental benefits of Bt cotton in Pakistan. Agricultural Economics 2013; 44:323-335; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marra M, Pardey P, Alston J. The pay-offs of agricultural biotechnology: an assessment of the evidence. Washington, USA: Taylor & Francis; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• MB Agro. Intacta soybeans: An economic view of the benefits of adopting the new technology. Report commissioned by Monsanto Brazil; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Mendez K, Chaparro Giraldo A, Reyes Moreno G, Silva Castro C. Production cost analysis and use of pesticides in the transgenic and conventional crop in the valley of San Juan (Colombia), GM Crops 2011; 2(3):163-168.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Monsanto Australia. Survey of herbicide tolerant canola licence holders 2008. Unpublished paper.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Brazil. Farm survey of conventional and Bt cotton growers in Brazil 2007. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Romania. Unpublished results of farmer survey amongst soybean growers in 2006. 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Mullins W, Hudson J. Bollgard II versus Bollgard sister line economic comparisons. 2004 Beltwide cotton conferences, San Antonio, USA; Jan 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Nazli H, Sarker R, Meilke K, Orden D. Economic performance of Bt cotton varieties in Pakistan. Conference paper at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association 2010 AAEA, CAES and WACA Joint Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, USA; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Norsworthy JK, Ward SM, Shaw DR, Llewellyn RS, Nichols RL, Webster TM, Bradley KW, Frisvold G, Powles SB, Burgos NR, et al. Reducing the risk of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations, Weed Sci 2012; 60(special edition):31–62; http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-11-00155.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parana Department of Agriculture. Cost of production comparison: biotech and conventional soybeans, in USDA GAIN report, 2004, BR4629 of 11 November 2004. www.fas.usad.gov/gainfiles/200411/146118108.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Pray C, Hunag J, Hu R, Roselle S. Five years of Bt cotton in China – the benefits continue. The Plant Journal 2002; 31(4): 423-430; PMID:12182701; http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01401.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qaim M, De Janvry A. Bt cotton in Argentina: Analysing adoption and farmers willingness to pay. California: Taylor & Francis; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Qaim M, De Janvry A. Bt cotton and pesticide use in Argentina: economic and environmental effects. Environment and Development Economics 2005; 10: 179-200; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X04001883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qaim M, Traxler G. Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level & aggregate welfare effects, Agricultural Economics 2005; 32(1):73-86; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00006.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramon G. Acceptability survey on the 80-20 bag in a bag insect resistance management strategy for Bt corn. Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines (BCP); 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Rice M. Transgenic rootworm corn: Assessing potential agronomic, economic and environmental benefits. Plant Health Progress 2004; 10,094/php-2001-0301-01-RV.
   Google Scholar
• Riesgo L, Areal F, Rodriguez-Cerezo E. How can specific market demand for non GM maize affect the profitability of Bt and conventional maize? A case study for the middle Ebro Valley, Spain. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2012; 10(4): 867-876; http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2012104-448-11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sankala S, Blumenthal E. Impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2003- an update of eleven case studies, Washington: Taylor & Francis. Available at: www.ncfap.org.
   Google Scholar
• Sankala S, Blumenthal E. Impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2005- an update of eleven case studies. Washington: Taylor & Francis. Available at: www.ncfap.org.
   Google Scholar
• Traxler G, Godoy-Avila. Transgenic cotton in Mexico, Agbioforum 2004; 7(1&2): 57-64.
   Google Scholar
• Trigo E. Genetically modified crops in Argentina agriculture: An opened story. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Libros del Zorzal; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Trigo E, Cap E. Ten years of GM crops in Argentine Agriculture. ArgenBio; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• USDA. New technologies aiding Burmese cotton farmers, GAIN report BM 0025 of 14th January 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Weld W. Final report on the adoption of GM maize in South Africa for the 2008/09 season. South African Maize Trust, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Vitale J. Impact of Bollgard II on the socio economic and health welfare of smallholder cotton farmers in Burkina Faso: Results of the 2009 Field Survey14^th ICABR conference. Ravello, Italy; June 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Vitale J, Glick H, Greenplate J, Traore O. The economic impact of 2nd generation Bt cotton in West Africa: Empirical evidence from Burkina Faso. International Journal of Biotechnology 2008; 10(2/3): 167-183; http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBT.2008.018352
   Google Scholar
• Yorobe J. Economics impact of Bt corn in the Philippines. Paper presented to the 45^th PAEDA Convention, Querzon City; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Zambrano P. Insect resistant cotton in Colombia: Impact on farmers. Paper presented to the 13^th ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy; 2009.
   Google Scholar