IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v122y2024ics0306919223001707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Viewpoint: The uptake of new crop science: Explaining success, and failure

Author

Listed:
  • Paarlberg, Robert
  • Bhattacharya, Anjanabha
  • Huang, Jikun
  • Karembu, Margaret
  • Pray, Carl
  • Wesseler, Justus

Abstract

Applications of new crop science often spread widely to reach farm fields, but sometimes they do not. The Green Revolution seeds first released in the 1960s and 1970s were taken up widely and quickly, but the transgenic GMO seeds first released in the 1990s, which also performed well, have remained highly restricted. After more than two decades, 84 percent of all GMO crop acres around the world are still in just four Western Hemisphere countries, and 97.2 percent of total acres are still planted to just four crops. The presence or absence of six “success factors” can explain these divergent uptake trajectories. The success factors are 1) a broad social agreement on the urgent need to boost food production, 2) an immediate and obvious benefit for farmers when they plant the new seeds 3) social trust in the institutions producing and delivering the new technology, 4) an absence of new consumer food safety concerns, 5) an absence of organized opposition from environmental advocacy groups, and 6) the absence of a simple means to detect the altered genetics of the new seeds. The Green Revolution seeds enjoyed all six of these success factors, while GMO seeds enjoyed only one of the six. This same approach can be used to predict the future uptake of genome-edited crops, which show three of the six success factors, predicting a rate of uptake slower than for the Green Revolution but wider and faster than for GMOs. A preliminary scan of national regulatory decisions being made toward genome-edited seeds strengthens this prediction.

Suggested Citation

  • Paarlberg, Robert & Bhattacharya, Anjanabha & Huang, Jikun & Karembu, Margaret & Pray, Carl & Wesseler, Justus, 2024. "Viewpoint: The uptake of new crop science: Explaining success, and failure," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:122:y:2024:i:c:s0306919223001707
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102572
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919223001707
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102572?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. hasanuddin, nurhalisa & , Masni, 2022. "Zakat Dan Pajak Serta Regulasinya Di Indonesia," OSF Preprints eu6zp, Center for Open Science.
    2. Nadeem Ul Haque & Ahmed Waqar Qasim, 2022. "Regulatory Bodies: Hurting Growth And Investment," PIDE Monograph Series 2022:4, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    3. ., 2022. "The regulation of fintech," Chapters, in: Fintech, chapter 9, pages 176-196, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Flores, Lucas S. & Amaral, Marco A. & Vainstein, Mendeli H. & Fernandes, Heitor C.M., 2022. "Cooperation in regular lattices," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    5. Oecd & Nea, 2022. "National Legislative and Regulatory Activities," Nuclear Law Bulletin, OECD Publishing, vol. 2021(1).
    6. David Cyranoski, 2020. "What CRISPR-baby prison sentences mean for research," Nature, Nature, vol. 577(7789), pages 154-155, January.
    7. ., 2022. "Self-regulation: between internal and external dynamics," Chapters, in: The Governance of Global Industry Associations, chapter 8, pages 140-161, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Maarten C. W. Janssen & Santanu Roy, 2022. "Regulating Product Communication," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 245-283, February.
    9. John van der Oost & Louise O. Fresco, 2021. "Waive CRISPR patents to meet food needs in low-income countries," Nature, Nature, vol. 597(7875), pages 178-178, September.
    10. Kai Purnhagen & Justus Wesseler, 2021. "EU Regulation of New Plant Breeding Technologies and Their Possible Economic Implications for the EU and Beyond," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1621-1637, December.
    11. Oecd, 2022. "Communication regulators of the future," OECD Digital Economy Papers 333, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bansal, Vaiddehi & Wallach, Jessica & Lira Brandão, Juliana & Lord, Sarah & Taha, Ninar & Akoglu, Tulay & Kiss, Ligia & Zimmerman, Cathy, 2023. "An intervention-focused review of modern slave labor in Brazil’s mining sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Xiuqun Chen & Shun-Chi Yu & Xuemei Sun & Dan Wang, 2023. "Investigating the Influence of Brand Communication and Brand Trust on Customer Commitment: An Examination from the Perspective of Customer Perception," Advances in Decision Sciences, Asia University, Taiwan, vol. 27(2), pages 166-195, June.
    3. Brinkhoff, James & Houborg, Rasmus & Dunn, Brian W., 2022. "Rice ponding date detection in Australia using Sentinel-2 and Planet Fusion imagery," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 273(C).
    4. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2023. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 414-435, March.
    5. Mortoja, Md. Golam & Yigitcanlar, Tan, 2022. "Understanding political bias in climate change belief: A public perception study from South East Queensland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    6. Stéphan Marette & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Anastasia Bodnar & John Beghin, 2023. "New plant engineering techniques, R&D investment and international trade," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 349-368, June.
    7. Michaela Ludvíková & Miroslav Griga, 2022. "Pea transformation: History, current status and challenges," Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 58(3), pages 127-161.
    8. Cheng, Jiangjiang & Mei, Wenjun & Su, Wei & Chen, Ge, 2023. "Evolutionary games on networks: Phase transition, quasi-equilibrium, and mathematical principles," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 611(C).
    9. Lonneke M. Poort & Jac. A. A. Swart & Ruth Mampuys & Arend J. Waarlo & Paul C. Struik & Lucien Hanssen, 2022. "Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1207-1216, December.
    10. Rubin, Dan & Mohr, Iris & Kumar, V., 2022. "Beyond the box office: A conceptual framework for the drivers of audience engagement," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 473-488.
    11. Ya-Feng Zhang & Tara Qian Sun, 2022. "The Interaction of Biotechnology and Institution: A Stakeholder Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    12. Gabriella Vindigni & Iuri Peri & Federica Consentino & Roberta Selvaggi & Daniela Spina, 2022. "Exploring Consumers’ Attitudes towards Food Products Derived by New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    13. Tilman Reinhardt, 2023. "The farm to fork strategy and the digital transformation of the agrifood sector—An assessment from the perspective of innovation systems," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 819-838, June.
    14. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Wang, Zhiqi & Zhang, Yufeng & Jia, Bin & Gao, Ziyou, 2024. "Comparative Analysis of Usage Patterns and Underlying Determinants for Ride-hailing and Traditional Taxi Services: A Chicago Case Study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    16. Mathews, Duncan & Ó Gallachóir, Brian & Deane, Paul, 2023. "Systematic bias in reanalysis-derived solar power profiles & the potential for error propagation in long duration energy storage studies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    17. Tamás Stadler & Ágoston Temesi & Zoltán Lakner, 2022. "Soil Chemical Pollution and Military Actions: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, June.
    18. Fontes, Dalila B.M.M. & Homayouni, S. Mahdi & Gonçalves, José F., 2023. "A hybrid particle swarm optimization and simulated annealing algorithm for the job shop scheduling problem with transport resources," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1140-1157.
    19. Hennig, Jan C. & Firk, Sebastian & Wolff, Michael & Coskun, Hülgen, 2023. "Environmental management control systems: Exploring the economic motivation behind their implementation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    20. Paarlberg, Robert, 2022. "The trans-Atlantic conflict over “green” farming," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:122:y:2024:i:c:s0306919223001707. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.