Journal or Publishing Institution: Journal of Agrarian Change
Study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2010.00283.x/abstract
Author(s): Glover, D.
Article Type: Journal Publication
Record ID: 795
Abstract: Policy makers, journalists and other commentators have hailed genetically modified (GM) crops as a ‘pro‐poor’ success in the developing world. Their confidence appears to be justified by the encouraging conclusions reached by academic studies on the performance and impacts of GM crops, which seem to provide convincing evidence of substantial benefits for smallholders in developing countries. However, a detailed, critical examination of studies on transgenic, insect‐resistant cotton in China, India and South Africa demonstrates that the technology’s impacts have been evaluated and represented in selective and misleading ways. The performance and impacts of GM crops have in fact been highly variable, socio‐economically differentiated and contingent on a range of agronomic, socio‐economic and institutional factors. The shortcomings of the GM crop‐impacts literature have done a disservice to public and policy debates about GM crops in international development and impeded the development of sound, evidence‐based policy.
Keywords: China, India, South Africa, Bt cotton, GM crops, Gossypium, plants, biotechnology, cotton, economic impact, genetically engineered organisms, small farms, socioeconomics, transgenic plants, variation, genetically engineered plants, genetically modified organisms, genetically modified plants, GEOs, GMOs, People’s Republic of China, poverty alleviation, socioeconomic aspects, subsaharan Africa, Third World, transgenic organisms, Underdeveloped Countries, Africa South of Sahara, Developing Countries, Malvaceae, Malvales, eudicots, angiosperms, Spermatophyta, plants, eukaryotes, APEC countries, East Asia, Asia, Commonwealth of Nations, South Asia, Anglophone Africa, Africa, Southern Africa, Threshold Countries
Citation: Glover, D., 2010. Is Bt Cotton a Pro‐Poor Technology? A Review and Critique of the Empirical Record. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(4), pp.482-509.
