CHOICES
A publication of AAEA
Genetically modified (GM) crops are often judged differently in public debate than in the field. Public perceptions and regulatory responses vary widely across countries, yet the empirical evidence points in a more consistent direction. GM crops tend to improve farm performance by reducing pest and weed losses, especially through insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant traits (Klümper and Qaim, 2014; FAO, 2022). This gap between perception and productivity helps explain why adoption has advanced rapidly in some countries and remained limited in others. It also raises an important question at a time of persistent global food insecurity, with 673 million people facing hunger and nearly 2.3 billion experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity in 2024 (FAO et al., 2025). Against this backdrop, the discussion that follows compares cross-country differences in perceptions of GM crops and reviews the evidence on the productivity gains associated with their adoption across major commodities.
GM crops have expanded the tools that farmers can use to protect yields, but their effects are more complex than simple reductions in chemical use. Insect-resistant traits can reduce insecticide applications, while herbicide-tolerant traits have changed herbicide use patterns in ways that vary across crops and over time. Evidence from US maize and soybean crops shows heterogeneous effects of pesticide use and toxicity, with some early benefits dissipating as weed resistance became more important (Perry et al., 2016; Lee, Moschini, and Perry, 2023). These findings suggest that GM crop impacts should be evaluated in terms of yield effects, pesticide use, toxicity, resistance, and management practices.
Since the commercial introduction of GM seeds in 1996, adoption has followed different paths across countries. In the United States and in parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, approval for cultivation opened the door to rapid adoption by farmers, supported by expectationsof improved pest control, more effective crop management, and stronger productivity performance. Qaim (2016) describes how these anticipated benefits helped spread GM technologies. In contrast, the United Kingdom and the European Union adopted a more precautionary regulatory stance, continuing to restrict commercial cultivation even while permitting imports for animal feed and food processing, subject to strict approval and labeling requirements set by the European Commission (2025b) and the Food Standards Agency (2025).
This regulatory asymmetry reflects differences in regulatory design, public concerns, and political resistance in shaping policy decisions. Much of the opposition to GM crops has centered on perceived risks to human health, biosafety, the environment, and trust in regulatory institutions. These concerns cannot be answered solely by evidence on farm-level productivity. At the same time, evidence on crop performance remains important because regulatory restrictions and social resistance can limit access to technologies that reduce pest and weed losses, improve crop management, and affect farm income. Qaim (2016) and Hansen and Wingender (2023) highlight the costs of delayed or constrained adoption, arguing that the benefits of GM technology have been unevenly realized across countries. The purpose of this article is therefore not to treat public skepticism as a simple misunderstanding of agronomic evidence. Instead, the article examines how public perceptions, regulatory choices, and expected farm-level benefits jointly shape the extent to which GM crop technologies are adopted and the extent to which their documented benefits are realized across countries. The discussion that follows first reviews cross-country differences in perception and acceptance, then turns to the evidence on productivity and crop management outcomes across major commodities.
Scientific safety assessments, public acceptance, and regulatory decisions all shape the expansion of GM technology. Consumer attitudes matter because they influence market demand, political pressure, and the regulatory environment in which GM crops are approved or restricted. Acceptance also depends on more than technical knowledge. It is shaped by how the technology is framed and communicated, by individual values, by trust in institutions and technology, and by perceptions of health and environmental risk (Bearth, Drummond Otten, and Cohen, 2024; Paleologo et al., 2024). Survey evidence from multiple regions shows that attitudes toward GM foods differ substantially across countries and over time, suggesting that public acceptance is neither uniform nor fixed.
Many GM crops deliver benefits first at the farm level, much like mechanization, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and conventional breeding. GM crops differ in that consumers often associate them with food safety, environmental risks, seed market concentration, and uncertainty about long-term effects (Moschini, 2010; Bearth, Drummond Otten, and Cohen, 2024; Paleologoet al., 2024). As Figure 1 shows, much crop production
is used for animal feed and biofuels rather than direct consumption, so some benefits reach consumers indirectly through lower feed costs, more stable supply chains, or improved production efficiency. Acceptance, therefore, depends on how consumers and regulators weigh perceived risks, trust institutions, and evaluate who benefits most.
The cross-country evidence summarized in Figure 2 reflects this uneven landscape. In several African and Asian countries, recent studies report moderate to relatively high levels of acceptance, especially when the benefits of GM crops are clearly communicated. In contrast, public opinion in parts of Europe and North America has historically been more skeptical, often shaped by concerns about health and environmental risks and by limited trust in regulatory institutions. At the same time, recent survey results in some countries indicate shifting attitudes, particularly toward newer genome-editing techniques, suggesting that public views can evolve as technologies and public debates change. Taken together, these patterns underscore a central theme of the GM discussion. Public perceptions of GM crops remain deeply uneven across countries, even as the productivity evidence points in a more consistent direction.
Evidence on GM crop productivity points to a broad but uneven pattern across major commodities. In many settings, GM traits have improved realized yields by reducing losses from insects, weeds, and other production stresses. The size of these gains, however, varies by crop, trait, location, pest pressure, weed pressure, and management conditions. These effects can also change over time as pest and weed populationsadapt, potentially reducing early gains and requiring more complex resistance management. The estimates summarized below should therefore be read as selected evidence on the main channels through which GM crops affect farm performance, not as directly comparable effects across crops or production systems. Much of that advantage comes from the two traits that have defined commercial GM adoption: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance. Figure 3 shows how central these traits have become in practice. In the United States, herbicide-tolerant soybeans expanded especially quickly, reaching near-complete adoption by the mid-2000s, while herbicide-tolerant cotton followed a similar, though somewhat slower, trajectory. Adoption of insect-resistant traits was more gradual, with steady gains in cotton and a sharper rise in corn after the mid-2000s. Over time, stacked varieties that combine both traits became increasingly common, reinforcing the importance of pest and weed control in the spread of GM crop technologies.
That pattern also helps explain the source of the productivity gains. Rather than raising the biological yield ceiling, GM traits tend to improve performance by reducing avoidable losses under field conditions. Figure 4 provides a common framework for organizing these effects across crops by summarizing selected estimates from the empirical literature on pest, weed, and yield losses in GM and non-GM systems. These estimates are not directly comparable across crops or studies; rather, they illustrate how GM traits can affect realized yields by reducing losses under production conditions. In particular, the soybean yield estimate should be interpreted with caution because the literature on herbicide-tolerant soybeans includes evidence of limited yield effects and possible yield drag in some settings. Taken together, these estimates show that the productivity contribution of GM crops lies mainly in limiting insect damage and improving weed control, thereby narrowing the gap between potential and realized yields. The crop-specific discussion that follows uses this framework to examine how those effects appear in soybeans, corn, cotton, wheat, and sugarcane.
Few crops connect farm productivity to the wider food system as directly as soybeans. Soybeans are a major source of protein and vegetable oil and rank among the most widely traded agricultural commodities worldwide (Martignone et al., 2024). They also play a central role in animal feed, supporting the production of meat, dairy, and poultry products that are integral to modern diets (OECD-FAO, 2023). For that reason, changes in soybean productivity do not stay at the farm level. When yields fall, the effects can move quickly through feed markets, raise production costs in the livestock sector, and add pressure on consumer prices and broader market stability (OECD-FAO, 2023). When productivity improves, the benefits likewise extend beyond soybean producers by easing supply pressures and supporting more stable food and feed systems (Qaim, 2016; Voora et al., 2024).
GM soybean adoption has been shaped largely by its role in reducing avoidable losses from weeds and pests. Weed pressure remains one of the biggest constraints on soybean productivity, with average yield losses estimated at 52.1% in the absence of effective control (Soltani et al., 2017). Herbicide-tolerant soybean systems can improve weed control and simplify crop management, with weed control levels often approaching 90% under effective management and leaving relatively limited damage in production fields (Kumar and Jha, 2015). Insect-resistant traits can also reduce pest-related losses, helping to keep damage in GM soybeans closer to 10% than to 15% in non-GM systems (Horikoshi et al., 2021). These management benefits, however, should not be interpreted as auniform yield advantage. The evidence for soybeans is more mixed than for some other GM crops, especially for herbicide-tolerant and Roundup Ready soybeans. Xu et al. (2013), for example, find that genetically engineered varieties increased realized yields in corn but not in soybeans, using US county-level yield data. Brookes and Barfoot (2018) report an average yield gain of 9.2% for GM soybeans across major producing countries, but this estimate should be interpreted as an average across different production settings rather than as evidence of a consistent yield premium across all soybean systems. Together, the evidence suggests that the main contribution of GM soybeans lies less in raising yield potential and more in improving weed and pest management, reducing losses under specific production conditions, and supporting more predictable crop management.
Corn matters to food security and market stability because it is used as food, animal feed, and an industrial input (Shiferaw et al., 2011; Erenstein Jaleta, and Sonder, 2022). Yield shortfalls can tighten supplies, raise feed costs, and amplify price volatility, while stronger yields support more reliable food availability (Zelingher, Makowski, and Brunelle, 2021; Qaim, 2017). GM corn has become an important part of that story by helping farmers reduce losses from some of the crop’s most persistent production constraints. Insect-resistant corn has been associated with substantial reductions in pest-related damage and with average yield gains of about 10% relative to non-GM systems (Oerke, 2006; Pellegrino et al., 2018). Weed pressure also remains a major source of yield loss, with uncontrolled weeds reducing corn yields by about 50% on average (Soltani et al., 2016). Herbicide-tolerant corn helps limit those losses by improving weed control and reducing damageto roughly 10% under effective management (Leguizamon, Acciaresi, and Guiamet, 2019). As in other crops, the main contribution of GM corn lies less in raising maximum yield potential than in protecting realized yields under field conditions. Those gains extend beyond corn producers themselves, as more stable corn supplies help lower feed costs, improve food affordability, and strengthen the resilience of interconnected food and livestock systems (Brookes and Barfoot, 2018).
Because cotton is a major cash crop in many low- and middle-income countries, productivity shocks often spill beyond the field into household incomes, rural employment, and local economic stability (Amrouk and Palmeri, 2021; Kathage and Qaim, 2012). That dependence makes yield losses especially costly for farmers, particularly in systems where pest pressure is high and input decisions are closely tied to expected returns. Because the crop is highly exposed to insect pressure, yield losses can quickly turn into income losses for farmers. In conventional systems, pest-related damage can exceed 28% of potential yield, underscoring the extent to which cotton performance depends on effective crop protection (Oerke, 2006; Rawal, Dahiya, and Kumar, 2018). Weed pressure adds to that challenge, with potential yield losses estimated at 35% in the absence of effective control (Oerke, 2006). In this setting, productivity gains in cotton affect more than output; they also support the economic stability of farming households and rural communities.
GM cotton has become important largely because it helps reduce these avoidable losses. Insect-resistant cotton has been associated with average yield gains of around 25%, reductions in pesticide applications of about 50%, and reductions in pest-related damage exceeding 90% under field conditions (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003; Carpenter, 2010; Krishna and Qaim, 2012; Kouser and Qaim, 2013; Rawal, Dahiya, and Kumar, 2018). Herbicide-tolerant cotton likewise improves weed control, reaching up to 98% control in field trials and helping narrow yield gaps under production conditions (Chinnusamy, Chinnagounder, and Krishnan, 2013). As with other GM crops, the main contribution of these traits lies less in raising the crop’s biological yield potential than in protecting realized yields against pest and weed pressure. In cotton, these gains improve farm performance while helping producers remain competitive in markets shaped by global textile demand and policy conditions (Amrouk and Palmeri, 2021).
Wheat presents a different case from soybeans, corn, and cotton. It has the largest planted area of any crop in the world and remains central to global diets, yet production is highly exposed to climate variability and persistent yield instability (Trnka et al., 2014; Shewry and Hey, 2015). Because wheat underpins a wide range of staple foods, disruptions in production can carry broad consequences for food availability and prices. That challenge is likely to grow as demand for wheat continues to rise, especially in Asia, where population growth, urbanization, and changing consumption patterns are expected to intensify pressure on supply (Erenstein et al., 2022). In this setting, interest in wheat improvement has focused on raising yields and on reducing losses under stressful production conditions.Recent work on GM wheat reflects that shift. One of the most notable developments is drought-tolerant wheat designed for water-limited environments. Field trials in Argentina report average yield gains of about 6%, rising to as much as 16% under drought and high-temperature stress (Gupta, 2024). The variety has since been authorized for food and feed use in several countries, and the United States has joined Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay in allowing its cultivation, widening the scope for potential adoption (Polansek and Ingwersen, 2024). At the same time, wheat also illustrates the limits of GM diffusion. Herbicide-tolerant wheat was developed to improve weed management but was never commercialized because of export market concerns (Cowan, 2014), even though weed interference can reduce yields by more than 20% in the absence of effective control (Flessner et al., 2021). Insect pests account for an additional 9.3% of global wheat yield losses, yet insect resistance in wheat still comes mainly from conventional breeding rather than genetically engineered traits (Tadesse et al., 2021). Therefore, wheat stands out as a case in which the potential role of biotechnology is increasingly visible, yet commercial adoption remains limited despite rising demand and ongoing production risks.
Sugarcane is the world’s dominant sugar crop, with global production exceeding 1.6 billion tons since 2010 and surpassing 2 billion tons for the first time in 2023 (FAO, 2023). Its importance extends well beyond its production volume. Sugarcane supplies most of the sugar consumed worldwide and serves as a major feedstock for biofuel production, linking its performance to both food and energy markets (OECD-FAO, 2023; Malik et al., 2024). Yet improving sugarcane productivity remains difficult. Conventional breeding is constrained by the crop’s complex genome and limited natural resistance to major pests, making biotechnology an increasingly relevant option for crop improvement (Dessoky et al., 2020).
Much of that interest reflects the scale of avoidable losses in sugarcane production. Insect pests affect roughly 40% of crops each year and can reduce yields by up to 25% (Li et al., 2016). Evidence from GM sugarcane lines shows that stem damage can be reduced to around 13%, compared with substantially higher levels in conventional varieties, indicating stronger protection against key pests (Gao et al., 2016). Weed pressure adds another major source of yield loss. Weed infestation is widely regarded as one of the most serious constraints in sugarcane production, with potential losses reaching about 40% depending on infestation intensity (Suganthi, Muthukrishnan, and Chinnusamy, 2019). These pressures help explain the growing interest in herbicide-tolerant sugarcane, even though such varieties are not yet commercially available (Chandraleka et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2017). As with the other crops discussed here, GM traits in sugarcane primarily reduce losses that limit realized yields rather than raise the crop’s biological yield ceiling.
Public perceptions of GM crops continue to differ widely across countries, while the productivity evidence points to a clearer farm-level pattern. Across the major crops reviewed here, GM traits have often helped farmers reduce pest and weed losses, narrow yield gaps, and improve realized performance. Their main contribution lies in protecting yields under the production conditions farmers face rather than in raising the biological yield ceiling. The size and durability of these benefits, however, can change over time as pest and weed resistance develops, pesticide use patterns shift, and management practices adapt. Recognizing this helps place the debate on firmer ground. GM crops should not be evaluated by broad claims about biotechnology or by productivity effects alone, but by their practical role in reducing avoidable losses, stabilizing output, and shaping farm management over time.
Uneven adoption is better understood as the result of several forces operating together. Public concerns about health, biosafety, and environmental risk shape political pressure and regulatory choices. Trust in regulatory institutions, market access concerns, and differences in national policy also affect whether GM crops are approved and adopted. At the same time, expected farm-level benefits influence farmer demand where cultivation is permitted. In countries where regulatory frameworks have allowed cultivation and expected management gains are large, farmers have often adopted GM crops rapidly. Elsewhere, adoption has been slowed or blocked even when evidence suggests that farm-level benefits may be available. The global debate over GM crops is therefore about more than productivity, safety, or consumer acceptance. It is about how societies weigh perceived risks, regulatory uncertainty, market concerns, and the economic and agronomic costs of delayed or forgone adoption.
For policymakers, these findings underscore the importance of regulatory approaches grounded in scientific evidence and a clear assessment of tradeoffs. Where the public debate remains disconnected from observed farm-level outcomes, policies may end up limiting access to technologies that can support productivity growth, reduce chemical input use, and strengthen resilience under increasing biological and environmental stress. For agricultural economists, the evidence also points to the need for continued work on the links between public perception, regulation, and technology adoption. A better understanding of these interactions will be essential for evaluating the future of existing GM crops and the potential role of newer biotechnologies in addressing food system challenges in the years ahead.
Amrouk, E.M., and F. Palmeri. 2021. Recent Trends and Prospects in the World Cotton Market and Policy Developments. Trade Policy Brief 41. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7232en
Bearth, A., C. Drummond Otten, and A.S. Cohen. 2024. “Consumers’ perceptions and acceptance of genome editing in agriculture: Insights from the United States of America and Switzerland.” Food Research International 178:113982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.113982
Brookes, G., and P. Barfoot. 2018. “Farm Income and Production Impacts of Using GM Crop Technology 1996–2016.” GM Crops & Food 9(2):59–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2018.1464866
Carpenter, J.E. 2010. “Peer-Reviewed Surveys Indicate Positive Impact of Commercialized GM Crops.” Nature Biotechnology 28(4):319–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0410-319
Chandraleka, R., K.K. Verma, X.P. Song, D.L. Huang, R. de Mello Prado, Y. Li, and V. Yre. 2025. “Genetic Improvement for Herbicide Tolerance in Sugarcane.” In K.K. Verma, X.P. Song, D.L. Huang, R. de Mello Prado, Y. Li, and V. Yre, eds. Revolutionizing Sugarcane Molecular Breeding and Biotechnological Approaches. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-6871-7_23
Chinnusamy, N., C. Chinnagounder, and P.T. Krishnan. 2013. “Evaluation of Weed Control Efficacy and Seed Cotton Yield in Glyphosate-Tolerant Transgenic Cotton.” American Journal of Plant Sciences 4(6A):1343–1349. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2013.46142
Cowan, T. 2014. Unapproved Genetically Modified Wheat Discovered in Oregon and Montana: Status and Implications. Congressional Research Service Report R43100. Available online: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R43100/R43100.7.pdf
Cui, K., and S.P. Shoemaker. 2018. “Public Perception of Genetically Modified (GM) Food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study.” NPJ Science of Food 2(1):10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4
de Castro, B.S. 2016. “15 Years of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in Brazil: Risks, Labeling and Public Opinion.” Agroalimentaria 22(42):103–117.
Dessoky, E.S., R.M. Ismail, N.I. Elarabi, A.A. Abdelhadi, and N.A. Abdallah. 2020. “Improvement of Sugarcane for Borer Resistance Using Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of the cry1Ac Gene.” GM Crops and Food 12(1):47–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2020.1809318
Erenstein, O., M. Jaleta, and K. Sonder. 2022. “Global Maize Production, Consumption and Trade: Trends and R&D Implications.” Food Security 14:1295–1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7
Erenstein, O., M. Jaleta, K.A. Mottaleb, K. Sonder, J. Donovan, and H.-J. Braun. 2022. “Global Trends in Wheat Production, Consumption and Trade.” In M.P. Reynolds and H.-J. Braun, eds. Wheat Improvement. Springer International, pp. 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90673-3_4
European Commission. 2010. Food-Related Risks. Special Eurobarometer 354. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/reporten.pdf
———. 2025a. Food-Related Risks. Special Eurobarometer 103.3. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-09/2025 EB 103.3 EFSA Report_vfinal.pdf
———. 2025b. “Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/2541 Renewing the Authorization of Genetically Modified Maize MON 87427-7 Under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.” Official Journal of the European Union. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202502541
Flessner, M.L., I.C. Burke, J. Dill, W.J. Everman, M.J. VanGessel, B. Tidemann, and P.H. Sikkema. 2021. “Potential Wheat Yield Loss Due to Weeds in the United States and Canada.” Weed Technology 35(6):916–923. https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2021.78
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2022. Gene Editing and Agrifood Systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3579en
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2023. FAOSTAT: Agricultural Production Statistics. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations Children’s Fund, World Food Programme, and World Health Organization. 2025. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2025: Ending Hunger, Food Insecurity and Malnutrition. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd6008en
Food Standards Agency. 2025. Genetically Modified Organisms: Authorisation Guidance. Available online: https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/genetically-modified-organisms-authorisation-guidance
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). 2022. GM Foods Consumer Survey Report. Available online: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/P1055 Consumer Survey Report.pdf
Gao, S., Y. Yang, C. Wang, J. Guo, D. Zhou, Q. Wu, et al. 2016. “Transgenic Sugarcane with a cry1Ac Gene Exhibited Better Phenotypic Traits and Enhanced Resistance Against Sugarcane Borer.” PLoS ONE 11(4):e0153929. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153929
Gastrow, M., B. Roberts, V. Reddy, and S. Ismail. 2018. “Public Perceptions of Biotechnology in South Africa.” South African Journal of Science 114(1/2):9. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2018/20170276
González, F.G., M. Capella, K.F. Ribichich, F. Curín, J.I. Giacomelli, F. Ayala, et al. 2019. “Field-Grown Transgenic Wheat Expressing the Sunflower Gene Hahb4 Significantly Outyields the Wild Type.” Journal of Experimental Botany 70(5):1669–1681. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erz037
Gupta, S.K. 2024. “Drought-Tolerant Transgenic Wheat HB4: A Hope for the Future.” Trends in Biotechnology 42(3):389–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2023.12.007
Hansen, C.W., and A.M. Wingender. 2023. “National and Global Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops.” American Economic Review: Insights 5(2):224–240. https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20220144
Horikoshi, R.J., P.M. Dourado, G.U. Berger, D. de S. Fernandes, C. Omoto, A. Willse, et al. 2021. “Large-Scale Assessment of Lepidopteran Soybean Pests and Efficacy of Cry1Ac Soybean in Brazil.” Scientific Reports 11:15956. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95483-9
Jhala, A.J., L.D. Sandell, and G.R. Kruger. 2014. “Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) with 2,4-D Followed by Pre-Emergence or Post-Emergence Herbicides in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max L.).” American Journal of Plant Sciences 5(15):2289–2297. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2014.515243
Kathage, J., and M. Qaim. 2012. “Economic Impacts and Impact Dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) Cotton in India.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(29):11652–11656. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203647109
Klümper, W., and M. Qaim. 2014. “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops.” PLoS ONE 9(11):e111629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
Korea Biosafety Clearing House. 2023. Deriving Communication Strategies Through the 2022 National Survey on LMO Awareness. Available online: https://www.biosafety.or.kr/portal/page/e_02?bbscttPid=5307&bbsPid=1
Kouser, S., and M. Qaim. 2013. “Impact of Bt Cotton on Pesticide Poisoning in Smallholder Agriculture: A Panel Data Analysis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(34):13784–13789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.008
Krishna, V.V., and M. Qaim. 2012. “Bt Cotton and Sustainability of Pesticide Reductions in India.” Agricultural Systems 107:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.11.005
Kumar, V., and P. Jha. 2015. “Effective Preemergence and Postemergence Herbicide Programs for Kochia Control.” Weed Technology 29(1):24–34. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-14-00026.1
Lee, S., G. Moschini, and E.D. Perry. 2023. “Genetically Engineered Varieties and Applied Pesticide Toxicity in US Maize and Soybeans: Heterogeneous and Evolving Impacts.” Ecological Economics 211:107873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107873
Leguizamon, E.S., H.A. Acciaresi, and J.J. Guiamet. 2019. “Response of Annual Weeds to Glyphosate: Evaluation and Optimization of Application Rate Based on a Fecundity-Avoidance Biomass Threshold Criterion.” Agronomy 9(12):851. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9120851
Li, Y., W.X. Duan, Z. Huang, Z.P. Wang, W.J. Li, K.J. Wei, et al. 2016. “Occurrence of Major Diseases and Insect Pests in Medium-Term Growth Period of Sugarcane and the Disease Resistance Evaluation in Guangxi.” Plant Disease Pests 7:15–19.
Malik, K., S.C. Capareda, B.R. Kamboj, S. Malik, K. Singh, S. Arya, and D.K. Bishnoi. 2024. “Biofuels Production: A Review on Sustainable Alternatives to Traditional Fuels and Energy Sources.” Fuels 5(2):157–175. https://doi.org/10.3390/fuels5020010
Martignone, G.M.B., B. Ghosh, D. Papadas, and K. Behrendt. 2024. “The Rise of Soybean in International Commodity Markets: A Quantile Investigation.” Heliyon 10(15):e34669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34669
Mine, A., S. Okamoto, T. Myojin, M. Hamada, and T. Imamura. 2023. “Basic Biology Education in High School and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food in Japan.” PLoS ONE 18(2):e0281493. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281493
Moschini, G. 2010. “Competition Issues in the Seed Industry and the Role of Intellectual Property.” Choices 25(2):1–14. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.94757
Oerke, E.-C. 2006. “Crop Losses to Pests.” Journal of Agricultural Science 144(1):31–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859605005708
Oh, S.-D., and B. Lee. 2025. “Analysis of the Public Perception and Acceptance of Gene-Editing Technology and Gene-Edited Agricultural Products in South Korea.” GM Crops and Food 16(1):795–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2025.2576272
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (OECD-FAO). 2023. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2023–2032. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/08801ab7-en
Owusu-Amoah, S., R. Aidoo, J.O. Mensah, and E.K. Andoh. 2022. “Factors Driving the Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food Crops in Ghana.” Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 25(1):e12031. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh3.12031
Paleologo, M., A. Lanubile, M. Camardo Leggieri, G. Graffigna, P. Gomaraska, and S. Barello. 2024. “Public Perception of New Plant Breeding Techniques and the Psychosocial Determinants of Acceptance: A Systematic Review.” Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241254981
Pellegrino, E., S. Bedini, M. Nuti, and L. Ercoli. 2018. “Impact of Genetically Engineered Maize on Agronomic, Environmental and Toxicological Traits: A Meta-Analysis of 21 Years of Field Data.” Scientific Reports 8:3113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2
Perry, E.D., F. Ciliberto, D.A. Hennessy, and G. Moschini. 2016. “Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in US Maize and Soybeans.” Science Advances 2(8):e1600850. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600850
Pew Research Center. 2018, November 19. “Americans Are Narrowly Divided over the Health Effects of Genetically Modified Foods.” Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/11/19/americans-are-narrowly-divided-over-health-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods
———. 2020, November 11. “Science and Scientists Held in High Esteem Across Global Publics.” Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/11/many-publics-around-world-doubt-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/
Polansek, T., and J. Ingwersen. 2024, August 28. “U.S. Says Genetically Modified Wheat Safe to Grow, Pending Trials.” Reuters. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-says-genetically-modified-wheat-safe-grow-pending-trials-2024-08-27/
Qaim, M. 2016. Genetically Modified Crops and Agricultural Development. Palgrave Macmillan.
———. 2017. “Globalisation of Agrifood Systems and Sustainable Nutrition.” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 76(1):12–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
Qaim, M., and D. Zilberman. 2003. “Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries.” Science 299(5608):900–902. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1080609
Rawal, R., K.K. Dahiya, and A. Kumar. 2018. “Bollworms Infestation in Cotton Genotypes on the Bolls and Locule Basis Under Unsprayed Condition.” Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 6(4):2092–2096.
Shewry, P.R., and S.J. Hey. 2015. “The Contribution of Wheat to Human Diet and Health.” Food and Energy Security 4(3):178–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.64
Shiferaw, B., B.M. Prasanna, J. Hellin, and M. Bänziger. 2011. “Crops That Feed the World 6. Past Successes and Future Challenges to the Role Played by Maize in Global Food Security.” Food Security 3(3):307–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-011-0140-5
Soltani, N., J.A. Dille, I.C. Burke, W.J. Everman, M.J. VanGessel, V.M. Davis, and P.H. Sikkema. 2016. “Potential Corn Yield Losses from Weeds in North America.” Weed Technology 30(4):979–984. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-16-00046.1
Soltani, N., J.A. Dille, I.C. Burke, W.J. Everman, M.J. VanGessel, V.M. Davis, and P.H. Sikkema. 2017. “Perspectives on Potential Soybean Yield Losses from Weeds in North America.” Weed Technology 31(1):148–154. https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2016.2
Spök, A., T. Sprink, A.C. Allan, T. Yamaguchi, and C. Dayé. 2022. “Towards Social Acceptability of Genome-Edited Plants in Industrialised Countries?” Frontiers in Genome Editing 4:899331. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2022.899331
Suganthi, M., P. Muthukrishnan, and C. Chinnusamy. 2019. “Crop Weed Competition in Sugarcane - A Review.” Agricultural Reviews 40(3):208–216. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.R-1530
Tadesse, W., M. , L.C. Herrera, Z. Kehel, and M. El Bouhssini. 2021. “Wheat Breeding for Resistance to Major Insect Pests.” Agricultural Research and Technology 25(5):556321. https://doi.org/10.19080/ARTOAJ.2021.25.556321
Trnka, M., R.P. Rötter, M. Ruiz-Ramos, K.C. Kersebaum, J.E. Olesen, Z. Žalud, and M.A. Semenov. 2014. “Adverse Weather Conditions for European Wheat Production Will Become More Frequent with Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change 4(7):637–643. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2242
US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS). 2025. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-united-states/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption
Voora, V., S. Bermúdez, H. Le, C. Larrea, and E. Luna. 2024. Global Market Report: Soybean Prices and Sustainability. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2024-02/2024-global-market-report-soybean.pdf
Wang, W.Z., B.P. Yang, X.Y. Feng, Z.Y. Cao, C.L. Feng, J.G. Wang, et al. 2017. “Development and Characterization of Transgenic Sugarcane with Insect Resistance and Herbicide Tolerance.” Frontiers in Plant Science 8:1535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01535
Xu, Z., D.A. Hennessy, K. Sardana, and G. Moschini. 2013. “The Realized Yield Effect of Genetically Engineered Crops: U.S. Maize and Soybean.” Crop Science 53(3):735–745. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2012.06.0399
Zelingher, R., D. Makowski, and T. Brunelle. 2021. “Assessing the Sensitivity of Global Maize Price to Regional Productions Using Statistical and Machine Learning Methods.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5:655206. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.655206
