Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

4 Farm-System Dynamics and Social Impacts of Genetic Engineering
Pages 187-212

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 187...
... . Because further innovations through genetic engineering are anticipated, such research is needed to inform seed developers, pol icy makers, and farmers about potential favorable benefits for adopters 
From page 188...
... . In the 1980s, social scientists broadened their research on the impacts of technology adoption on farms and farm communities to include studies of the potential and actual impacts of biological (pregenetic engineering)
From page 189...
... Thus, though seed varieties are generally conceptualized as being scale-neutral, the adoption of any technology may be biased toward large firms that can spread the fixed costs of learning over greater quantities of production (Caswell et al., 1994)
From page 190...
... In an article that attempted to predict some of the environmental, economic, and social effects of genetic engineering of crops, it was argued that the use of GE crops was "clearly capable of causing major ecological, economic, and social changes" (Pimentel et al., 1989: 611)
From page 191...
... SOCIAL NETWORKS AND ADOPTION DECISIONS The adoption of genetic-engineering technology and its performance on the farm are functions of the knowledge of agricultural deci sion makers, who include farmers, input suppliers, commodity traders, farm-management consultants, and extension agents. In making technol ogy-adoption decisions, farmers rely principally on information about the relative performance of competing technologies and on information about best practices for optimizing yields and controlling costs, given the technologies that they use.
From page 192...
... have summarized, plantbreeding research until the 1930s was conducted primarily by the public sector (for example, USDA and state agricultural experiment stations) , and most commercial seed suppliers were small, family-owned businesses that multiplied seed varieties that had been developed in the public domain.
From page 193...
... . Two principal forms of legal protection for seed innovators are plant variety protection (PVP)
From page 194...
... . Though it is difficult to obtain recent detailed published market share information, it appears from company reports and other sources that the trend of increased concentration in the struc ture of the seed industry continued in recent years.3 Farm survey data for corn and soybean indicated that by 2007 the share of the four largest firms reached 72 percent for corn and 55 percent for soybean (Figure 4-2; Shi and Chavas, 2009)
From page 195...
... adapted the four-firm concentration-ratio measure, commonly used to quantify industry concentration in terms of sales, to examine R&D concentration on the basis of regulatory approvals of GE crop varieties. Table 4-2 shows the percentage of field releases obtained by the leading four firms
From page 196...
... . Although the increase in seed-industry concentration has raised concerns about its potential impact on market power, and ultimately on 4A contestable market behaves in a competitive manner despite having few companies because of the threat of new entrants.
From page 197...
... However, concerns have been raised that, in time, such market power could lead to decreased variability in the types of seeds being produced for the market, as well as increased prices, which could limit the ability of farmers to purchase those seeds most suited for local environmental conditions. In addition, it is conceivable that the continued market power of biotechnology supply firms could lead to increased input costs for farmers, which in turn could have an unfavorable effect on the socioeconomic sustainability of farms.
From page 198...
... In addition, studies of how seed-industry concentration, as well as the practice of cross-licensing, could interact with farmers' planting options and decisions, overall yield benefits, crop genetic diversity, and economic returns would be very valuable. Although the private sector owns the majority of agriculturalbiotechnology patents, the public sector still owns a substantial share.
From page 199...
... Farmers may also block a technology if its introduction would result in lower prices in national or international markets. A large body of literature on the political economy of research argues that farmers use political pressure to shape public research funding.
From page 200...
... Thus, the potential for collective action to restrain the power of the seed industry is a function of farmers' common interests, which are often variable. Farmer cooperatives may also undertake efforts to bring about the introduction of seed traits that the private sector, for economic or other reasons, is not motivated to introduce.
From page 201...
... The technology is developed and sold by the private sector. But because it had historically been difficult to capture benefits from research efforts in seed technology before the advent of hybrid corn seed, the private sector underprovided seed-technology innovation, and the public sector took the lead in providing improved seed varieties in many crops (especially wheat, soybean, cotton, barley, and oat)
From page 202...
... The push to develop seed varieties with a series of stacked traits, some of which may not be of use to some farmers with respect to short-term productivity (leaving aside the issue of improved resistance management discussed in Chapter 2) , raises the issue of access to seeds that have equivalent yield potential but only the desired GE traits or no GE traits at all.
From page 203...
... The legal issues are complex, and a complete treatment of them is beyond the expertise of any of the authors of this report. We briefly touch here on the issues of seed saving, gene flow, and organic standards.
From page 204...
... As noted in Chapters 2 and 3, the adventitious presence of GE material in non-GE crops raises complex environmental and economic challenges. Similarly, social problems could arise as a consequence of gene flow, particularly if GE and non-GE producers of the same commodity live in the same community.
From page 205...
... clearly depend on the existence of high levels of com munity cooperation, which could be undermined by disputes related to gene flow. Organic Laws and Resistance to Genetic Engineering One of the intriguing public debates that has emerged around genetic engineering in agriculture has been that regarding whether GE crops should be allowable in legal standards for organic agriculture.
From page 206...
... Research on the adoption of other agricultural technologies has demonstrated substantial social impacts on a farm level and a community level. Those impacts include but are not limited to: decreases to and change of composition in the agricultural labor force; better on-farm working conditions; changes in farm and agriculturalindustry structure; increases in capital requirements for farmers; and a decline in the socioeconomic viability of some rural communities.
From page 207...
... The legal debates may mask deeper social and ideological divisions over the use of GE plants and how to define and implement sustainable agricultural practices. REFERENCES Anonymous.
From page 208...
... American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(5)
From page 209...
... 1989. Benefits and risks of genetic engineering in agriculture.
From page 210...
... American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(5)
From page 211...
... 2003. Issues in development and adoption of genetically modified (GM)


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.