Biotechnology in Agriculture

Herdt, Robert W.

doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.31.031405.091314

Cited by 84 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 105 publications

(90 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While other impact groups were rarely addressed in isolation (Table 3), the majority of studies only addressed impacts from one to two different groups. Only 40 of the publications addressed impacts from three or more groups and only seven of 99 publications [45,[47][48][49][50][51][52] addressed aspects from all five impact groups. However, all but one of these seven publications either addressed the impacts from a specific perspective, e.g., that of the Millennium Development Goals [49] or in relation to regulatory aspects [48], or relating to a specific geographical region, crop or modification.…”

Section: Range Of Social Impacts Addressedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, all but one of these seven publications either addressed the impacts from a specific perspective, e.g., that of the Millennium Development Goals [49] or in relation to regulatory aspects [48], or relating to a specific geographical region, crop or modification. The only study to address impacts across all impact groups [50] was nine years old. Furthermore, none of the publications addressing impacts from all groups were based on new empirical material.…”

Section: Range Of Social Impacts Addressedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Impacts of GM Crops in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has recently been argued that the fragmented knowledge on the social impacts of genetically modified (GM) crops is contributing to the polarised debate on the matter. This paper addresses this issue by systematically reviewing 99 peer-reviewed journal articles published since 2004 on the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture; summarising current knowledge, and identifying research gaps. Economic impact studies currently dominate the literature and mainly report that GM crops provide economic benefits for farmers. Other social impacts are less well studied, but present a more complex picture. Studies on access to and benefits of GM crops show that these vary significantly depending on the political and regulatory setting. Substantial evidence indicates that intellectual property rights (IPR) and the private industry's dominance limit the access and utility of available GM crops to many farmers. Wellbeing is frequently discussed in the literature, but rarely investigated empirically. Existing evidence is contradictory and inconclusive. Impact studies from the Global North are virtually non-existent. Moreover, OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 8599 two-thirds of publications are based on previously published empirical evidence, indicating a need for new empirical investigations into the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture.

show abstract

Section: Range Of Social Impacts Addressedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Range Of Social Impacts Addressedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Impacts of GM Crops in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2;Lang, O'Neill, and Hallman 2003;Cook, Pieri, and Robbins 2004;Demortain 2013.) However, as many observers of the controversy have noted, opponents are as concerned about social, economic, and political issues as they are about health and environmental issues (Sagar, Daemmrich, and Ashiya 2000;Stone 2002;Sarewitz 2004, 398;Herdt 2006;Thompson and Hannah 2008;Bronson 2010;Piesse and Thirtle 2010). Specifically, some observers argue that GM crops -especially in terms of issues amenable to quantitative assessment, such as health or yields -serve as a "surrogate" or a "proxy" for a much deeper controversy about the global food system (Nestle 2010, 141ff;Johnson 2014;Thompson 2014).…”

Section: The Context Of Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemological depth in a GM crops controversy

Hicks

2015

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the scientific controversy over the yields of genetically modified [GM] crops as a case study in EPISTEMOLOGICALLY DEEP disagreements. Appeals to "the evidence" are inadequate to resolve such disagreements; not because the interlocutors have radically different metaphysical views (as in cases of incommensurability), but instead because they assume rival epistemological frameworks and so have incompatible views about what kinds of research methods and claims count as evidence. Specifically, I show that, in the yield debate, proponents and opponents of GM crops cite two different sets of claims as evidence, which correspond to two rival epistemological frameworks, classical experimental epistemology and Nancy Cartwright's evidence for use. I go on to argue that, even if both sides of the debate accepted Cartwright's view, they might still disagree over what counts as evidence, because evidence for use ties standards of evidence to what is sometimes called the "context of application."

show abstract

“…Biotechnology has made a profound impact on agriculture and food industry the world over the past 15 years (Phillips, 2002;Herdt, 2006:;Dahlandera and Gannb, 2010;biotecVisions 2011) 1 . Companies in developed and emerging countries have broadly adopted innovations in genetically modified (GM) with their relative advantages (Lusk, Jamal, Kurland, Rouco, Taulman, 2005, Qaim andZilberman, 2003).…”

Section: Impact Of Biotechnologymentioning

confidence: 99%