Home  ›  How Does Gmo Help the Environment Peer Review

How Does Gmo Help the Environment Peer Review

Written By martes, 19 de abril de 2022 Add Comment Edit
  • Systematic Review Protocol
  • Open Access
  • Published:

What are the socio-economic impacts of genetically modified crops worldwide? A systematic map protocol

  • Tiptunya Lapikanonth2,
  • Hanum Vionita2,
  • Hanh Vu2,
  • Shuang Yangii,
  • Yating Zhong2,
  • Yifei Li2,
  • Veronika Nagelschneidertwo,
  • Birgid Schlindwein3 &
  • Justus Wesseler1,four

Environmental Show volume iii, Commodity number:24 (2014) Cite this commodity

  • 75k Accesses

  • x Citations

  • eleven Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstract

Background

Genetically modified (GM) crops have generated a great deal of controversy. Since commercially introduced to farmers in 1996, the global surface area cultivated with GM crops has increased 94-fold. The rapid adoption of GM technology has had substantial socio-economic impacts which a vast amount of technical and not-technical literature has addressed in the concluding two decades. Yet, contradictory results between individual studies abound. All-encompassing and transparent reviews apropos this contentious and complex issue could help promote evidence-based dialogue amidst the diverse parties involved.

Methods

This protocol specifies the methodology for identifying, evaluating, and mapping evidence related to the principal review question: what are the socio-economic impacts of genetically modified crops worldwide? This question has been subdivided into the following topics: (a) farm-level impacts; (b) impacts of coexistence regulations; (c) impacts along the supply concatenation; (d) consumer-level impacts; (e) impacts on food security; and (f) environmental economic impacts. The search strategy includes the identification of main studies from general scientific databases; global, regional, and national specialist databases; an on-line search engine; institutional websites; periodical websites; subject experts/researchers; and serendipity. Searches will exist conducted in six languages (Chinese, English language, French, German, Portuguese, and Spanish). Identified studies will be screened for inclusion/exclusion criteria by a grouping of multi-language reviewers. Finally, pre-defined data from the studies will exist extracted, mapped, and presented in a report. Potential inquiry gaps will be identified and discussed, and the review procedure will be documented in an open up-access database (i.e. CADIMA, http://www.cadima.info/).

Groundwork

Genetically modified (GM) crops have generated a great deal of controversy. The use of biotechnology in agriculture has acquired major ideological and scientific concerns that continue to exist echoed in the media and academic printing [1]. Since commercially introduced to farmers in 1996, the global area cultivated with GM crops has increased 94-fold, from 1.7 million hectares to 160 one thousand thousand hectares in 2011 [2]. The rapid adoption of this applied science has had substantial socio-economic impacts [3]. Consequently, a vast corporeality of technical and non-technical literature addressing this topic has accumulated over the last two decades [4]. Moreover, groups of stakeholders characteristically advocate opposing opinions, which may not be based on all-time available evidence. Therefore, the availability of transparent and reliable reviews of studies on the socio-economical impacts of GM crops could help promote evidence-based dialogue amongst the diverse parties involved. Systematic maps use structured procedures that tin exist particularly useful for minimizing potential biases that may ascend during the process of identification, choice, and assay of prove involved in controversial topics. Systematic maps provide an opportunity to gather and describe evidence relevant to a wide field of policy and management relevancea. The breadth of the evidence captured in a systematic map helps to clearly identify potential research gaps and guide future inquiry efforts [5]. In addition, systematic maps make relevant evidence readily accessible to researchers and stakeholders through the development of extensive databases, the content of which can exist relatively hands updated as needed.

Currently, numerous literature reviews and meta-assay studies accept assessed the socio-economical impacts of GM crops (a non-comprehensive list of 20 studies is included in the Boosted file 1). Even so, none is a systematic map, and only one is a systematic review (see Hall et al. [6])b. That systematic review focused on the costs and profits of GM agriculture in comparing with conventional agriculture. I shortcoming of the document, as stated past the authors, was the exclusion of studies conducted before 2006, which disregards valuable earlier literature. The authors likewise clarified that [6]: "Additional fourth dimension for conducting a systematic review such as this one would allow the inclusion in the search process of additional databases that were excluded considering it was not possible to directly export results to Reference Manager Database. An extended review on this topic would be a potentially valuable contribution to the 'GM contend'".

Through the EU project "GMO Take chances Assessment and Communication of Evidence" (GRACE, 2012–2015), comprehensive reviews of existing evidence of potential health, environmental, and socio-economic impacts of GM crops worldwide volition be conducted [7]. Every bit members of GRACE, the authors of this protocol (Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Breadbasket) will undertake a systematic map on the socio-economic impacts of genetically modified (GM) crops. In particular, the Description of Work (DoW) for GRACE states that Breadbasket is responsible for carrying out reviews on the following primal topics: (1) farm-level economic impacts of GM crops; (2) economics of coexistence; (3) economics of segregation at the level of supply-chains; and (iv) consumer acceptance of GM crops.c GRACE is post-obit a participatory approach, and stakeholders are being consulted during each of the projection's steps. The stakeholders include members of industry and civil gild organizations, as well as competent government on GM crops in the EU Member States and scientific experts from academiad. 2 new topics were added based on stakeholder requests: ecology economical impactsdue east of GM crops and the impacts of GM crops on nutrient security (for more information well-nigh the participatory process, meet GRACE [8]). Therefore, TUM will produce a systematic map roofing the half-dozen topics stated above, the overall conceptual model of which is outlined in Figure  ane. The all-encompassing systematic map will address the broad review question: what are the socio-economical impacts of genetically modified crops worldwide?

Figure ane
figure 1

Overall conceptual model of the topics to be covered in the systematic map.

Full size paradigm

The systematic map undertaken will provide an important overview of the existing literature related to the socio-economic impacts of GM crops available in six languages (Chinese, English language, French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese). These languages are among the top nine used for publication of researchf [9] and likewise the primary languages spoken in 23 of the 28 countries currently cultivating GM crops [10].

The description of the topics to exist covered in the systematic map is provided beneath.

Subcontract-level impacts

Farmers take unlike socio-economical motivations for adopting GM crops. Significant socio-economical determinants include: gender associated aspects (e.g., [11]); individual and social learning (e.g., [12]); educational level (eastward.one thousand., [xiii]); and expected benefits and doubt (e.thousand., [fourteen–16]). For GM adopters, potential changes in yield and economic returns depend on current and previous crops and specific trait characteristics; agricultural practices; incidence of pest infestation; seed costs; and market characteristics (eastward.thou., [17, eighteen]). Farmers' production efficiency (farmers' ability to produce more with less than or equal inputs/resources) would too exist affected (east.chiliad., [xix]), as well every bit the frequency of pesticide poisoning incidents and health impacts (east.g., [20]). Consumption of new bio-fortified GM crops are expected to increase farmers' nutrition status and as such, they could significantly contribute to farmers' well-being (due east.g., [21]). Well-nigh of the world'due south poor depend mainly on farming for their subsistence. The adoption of GM crops could have dissimilar impacts on wealthier and poorer farmers (east.k., [22]), which could exacerbate/mitigate social bug. Ethical aspects may likewise be afflicted, equally it has been demonstrated that ethical values tin change over time (e.thousand., irresolute views on euthanasia in the U.S. and Nihon [23]). A alter in acceptability of GM crops may imply a change in adopters' values. Finally, cultural aspects may be impacted also; for example, GM seeds need to be purchased, causing a disturbance in the traditional exchange of seeds among indigenous farmers (forth with potential changes in identity and trust amidst involved farmers).The main aspects considered within this topic are presented graphically in a conceptual model (Figure  two). This conceptual model shows that socio-economical factors influence farmer decisions regarding the adoption of GM crops. GM adoption is expected to bear on aspects related to farmers' income and also intangible aspects. The potential income-related impacts include changes in the apply of inputs; associated costs; output (quantity and quality); and gross income. Some farmers could feel changes in fourth dimension available for conducting off-subcontract income-generating activities. A subcontract'south efficiency could deteriorate or amend with utilise of new technologies impacting the farmer's income. Intangible aspects that may be affected after GM adoption relate to health rubber bug associated with changes in pesticide utilize and farmers' nutritional condition if they cultivate and swallow bio-fortified crops. Primary social, ethical, and cultural aspects are also depicted in the conceptual model.

Figure 2
figure 2

Conceptual model of socio-economic impacts on farmers.

Full size image

Coexistence related impacts

The possibility that GM farms contaminate non-GM farms via unintentional or inadvertent factor flow constitutes a claiming for the coexistence of GM farming and conventional agriculture, including organic certified agricultural systems. Several studies have analysed the effects that the introduction of ex-dues regulatory and ex-post liability aspects would take on subcontract-level costs and GM spatial configuration and adoption dynamics (e.1000., [24–26]). In addition, potential benefits due to higher price premiums for non-GM products accept also been evaluated (e.g., [27]).The master aspects considered within this topic are presented graphically in a conceptual model (Figure  3). This conceptual model shows that GM plants and crops tin be introduced under alternative coexistence systems (separation between GM and non-GM farms and dual GM/non-GM farms) and regulatory frameworks, including ex-ante (e.g., mandatory segregation, traceability, minimum GM tolerance levels, rigid and flexible refuge areas, and voluntary GM-free zones) and ex-post liability aspects (e.g., bounty funds, insurance schemes, and marketplace liability). The different coexistence options are expected to influence in dissimilar manners GM and not-GM farm-level costs, particularly operational; transaction; opportunity; and testing and remediation costs. GM adoption dynamics could change as well, such as the charge per unit of adoption, spatial configuration, and speed and stability of GM expansion. GM-farmers would besides generate externalities and directly influence the economic benefits of not-GM farmers due to inadvertent gene flow from GM to non-GM fields which may create problems for non-GM farmers willing to sell their products in specific markets (due east.m., organic certified markets). Finally, social factors, such as the level of trust between neighbors, would influence farm-level costs (east.g., lower/higher negotiation costs) and adoption dynamics of GM crops (e.g., stronger/lower imitation or neighboring furnishings) in each of the ex-ante and ex-mail regulatory regimes nether evaluation (social aspects not pictured in the figure).

Figure 3
figure 3

Conceptual model of socio-economic impacts of coexistence.

Full size image

Supply chain impacts

The focus of this section is on the supply chain or organization network every bit unit of measurement of analysis. It aims to analyse the socio-economic impacts of the commercialization of GM crops on supply chain structure and performance dynamics, as well as price and benefit distribution along dissimilar actors in the supply chain.

In general, the basic elements of the structure of the supply chain include:

  1. (a)

    Vertical relations. These refer to the sequence of value adding activities. Actors performing unlike functions within the supply concatenation are vertically linked through buying and selling relationships. Vertical relations highlight the level of cooperation, coordination, trust, and governance (or ability) forth the chain.

  2. (b)

    Horizontal relations. These reflect the relationships amongst actors performing the aforementioned function within the chain. Horizontal relations can be formal (e.g., cooperatives and associations) or informal.

The chief factors related to supply chain operation are:

  1. (a)

    Efficiency or the ability to deliver value at a minimum of total costs.

  2. (b)

    Effectiveness or the power of the concatenation to provide superior value.

  3. (c)

    Innovation or the ability to reply to changes in consumer demand or the external environment.

Several studies take analysed the effect that the commercialization of GM crops would have on the supply chain structure, equally well as the distribution of costs and benefits of different actors along the supply chain (e.g., [28–32]). Moreover, governance mechanisms and marketplace ability of unlike actors would besides exist affected (e.g., [33, 34]). The main aspects considered nether this topic are presented graphically in a conceptual model (Effigy  iv). This conceptual model shows that the commercialization of GM products under dissimilar enforced coexistence rules, labeling schemes, and protection of intellectual property rights would have impacts on the supply concatenation construction (e.k., vertical and horizontal relations) and performance (e.g., efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation power). This in turn would touch on the distribution of costs and benefits for the unlike actors along the supply chain, as well as their market power (ability to influence the toll of a commercialized item).

Figure 4
figure 4

Conceptual model of socio-economic impacts forth the supply chain.

Full size paradigm

Consumer-level impacts

The socio-economic determinants for consumers' credence of GM nutrient and the associated price premiums for not-GM products accept been evaluated under unlike mandatory and voluntary GM-related label schemes (due east.g., [35–37]). Other studies have evaluated the option values of a moratorium or ban on GM products (e.g., [38]). Those price premiums and choice values have been used to calculate economic welfare effects (e.m., [39]). These and other main aspects related to the impacts of GM products on consumers are presented graphically in a conceptual model (Effigy  5). The conceptual model shows that GM products can be introduced into the market under mandatory and voluntary GM-related labels, including unlike tolerance levels (or percentage of GM ingredients in the final products) or can exist subject to moratorium or ban. The decision or intention to buy those products is based on consumers' socio-economical characteristics (east.g., age, gender, and educational level). Potential buyers can indicate their willingness to pay (WTP) for these products, and changes in social welfare tin be calculated based on the differences between the WTP and actual or expected prices (price premiums). If at that place is a moratorium or ban on GM products, pick values tin be calculated based on a (hypothetical) WTP to preserve or maintain this situation. Social welfare tin can be estimated by the difference between the WTP and the opportunity costs of forgoing economic growth associated with the commercialization of GM products. GM products can have an bear upon on consumers' health, for example in the case of bio-fortified food. Social, upstanding, and cultural aspects were added equally requested by stakeholders.

Figure 5
figure 5

Conceptual model of socio-economical impacts at consumer level.

Full size image

Environmental economic impacts of GM crops

GM crops may substitute for agricultural inputs and practices that are environmentally harmful. The study by Brookes & Barfoot [40] suggest that "since 1996 the utilize of pesticides (counted as active ingredients) on the GM crop surface area was reduced by 448 meg kg (ix% reduction), and the environmental touch quotient — an indicator measuring the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide utilise on these crops — roughshod past 17.9%. In 2010, the total carbon dioxide emission savings associated with GM crop adoption were equal to the removal from the roads of 8.half dozen 1000000 cars due to reduced fuel use and additional soil carbon sequestration".

GM crops can cause environmental impairment equally well (although at that place is considerable uncertainty and no consensus among scientists) [41]. In particular, the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services ought to be a height priority when taking into consideration the dependency on a healthy surround of all act, now and in the hereafter [42]. For those opposed to GM technology, GM crops are exotic species beingness introduced into open complex ecosystems of which nosotros have limited understanding [43], and as such it is impossible to anticipate all impacts of GM technology on the environment.

The furnishings of GM ingather adoption on the surround will depend not only on human behavior but on biological, ecological, and chemical interactions as well. Many disciplines are needed to evaluate these kinds of impacts [41]. In add-on, there is the possibility of irreversible ecosystem disruptions due in part to the unpredictable and novel furnishings of factor mixing [43].

Figure  vi shows a basic conceptual model of the potential ecology economic impacts of GM crops (based on information obtained from [40–46]). Depending on the blazon of genetic modification, the tillage of GM crops can alter the type or quantity of herbicide/insecticide used, amend the crops' resistance to external climate stress (e.chiliad., drought and salinization), or cause an undesired gene flow (eastward.m., from GM crops to wild relatives).

Figure vi
figure 6

Conceptual model of environmental economical impacts of GM crops.

Total size image

Changes in the type or quantity of herbicide/insecticide could create or change herbicide resistance in weeds or pesticide resistance in pests. Soil, water, and air contamination is reduced if the substituted herbicide/pesticide was more toxic than the new herbicide/pesticide. Further, if less herbicide/pesticide is required, resource like fuel could be saved. Changes in herbicide/insecticide apply could too modify agricultural practices, such as encourage tillage, weed management, or monoculture. New alternative agricultural practices could change the use of resources and fuel consumption, which in plough would have impacts on soil, h2o, and air contagion and soil organisms and biodiversity. In add-on, there could exist improvements in crop yields using existing country and h2o resources, which in turn could reduce land use; water and air contamination; minimize the impacts on biodiversity; and save resource and fuel consumption. In a similar fashion, the cultivation of drought- and salinity-tolerant GM crops would also impact soil, water, air, biodiversity, and modify the employ of resources and fuel consumption. Finally, there could be a cistron flow from GM crops to wild relatives with unknown consequences to the surround.

It is worth mentioning that this protocol contemplates the environmental economic impacts of GM crops. Therefore, only principal studies incorporating an economical assessment of these and like environmental impacts will be considered. The environmental impact cess component of the included primary studies will be taken as given.

Food security at household level

The estimated number of undernourished people has connected to decrease, only the rate of progress yet appears insufficient to reach international goals for hunger reduction [47]. Currently, nearly 842 million people (one in 8 people in the globe) suffer chronic hunger, unable to obtain the corporeality of food necessary to conduct an active life [47]. The vast bulk of hungry people live in developing countries, where the prevalence of undernourishment is estimated at fourteen percent [47].

Food security exists when all people, at all times, have concrete and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets dietary needs and food preferences for an active and good for you life [47]. At that place are four dimensions of nutrient security: food availability (e.thou., food product and processing); nutrient admission (e.chiliad., having the economic resources to purchase the right food); food utilization (e.grand., instruction to individuals to make proper use of salubrious food); and food organization stability (e.g., adequate access to food at all times). For food security objectives to be realised, all iv dimensions must be fulfilled simultaneously [47, 48].

Therefore, food security is a multidimensional concept, and information on all dimensions are rarely available and oftentimes unreliable [49]. Moreover, the international community lacks a consensus on core household food security indicators needed in club to properly mensurate and monitor food security worldwide. The indicators too vary on level of analysis, ranging from the regional or national level to the household or individual level, depending on data availability and the pattern of the instruments used to collect the data (e.g., surveys) [49].

In relation to GM crops, reports from skilful governmental and nongovernmental bodies increasingly include GM crops as office of a wider approach to food security [50]. GM crops could help to mitigate expected food shortages related to population growth and the effects of climate alter in specific regions worldwide. For example, GM crops could affect nutrient availability by providing seeds which are resistant to agin climate conditions; have an result on food admission past increasing farmers' incomes; and, under the same food utilization atmospheric condition, bio-fortified crops could increment the nutritional status of households worldwide. (Figure  7 illustrates this example).

Figure seven
figure 7

Conceptual model of food security at household level.

Full size image

In the arroyo followed in this protocol, the ultimate goal of food security is to improve the nutritional status of households. Information technology is worth mentioning that several of the multidimensional aspects of food security have been already covered by other topics in this protocol (e.1000., impacts of GM crops on farm-level income). Nevertheless, there are a growing number of socio-economic studies which specifically evaluate the impacts of GM crops on (at to the lowest degree 1 component of) food security and explicitly indicate that as so.

Objective of the systematic map

The main objective of the systematic map is to place the breadth of knowledge related to the socio-economic impacts of GM crops worldwide. Our question related to the overall objective of the systematic map is:

What enquiry bear witness exists (number of studies and the current state of enquiry studies) on the socio-economic impacts of GM crops worldwide (in Chinese, English, French, German language, Spanish, and Portuguese languages)?

Relating to the secondary objectives, the systematic map will place the types of socio-economic impacts; populations; crops and GM traits; geographical focus; enquiry methodologies; prove gaps; and the particular topics that could be subjects of farther analyses or subsequent systematic reviews. Therefore, the questions related to the secondary objectives of the systematic map are:

  1. a)

    What types of socio-economic impacts take been addressed?

  2. b)

    What types of populations have been addressed?

  3. c)

    What types of crops and GM traits have been addressed?

  4. d)

    What is the geographical focus of the bear witness?

  5. e)

    What enquiry methods accept been used to collect and analyse the evidence?

  6. f)

    What evidence gaps exist that could/ should exist addressed in futurity primary inquiry?

  7. 1000)

    Which item topics could be the bailiwick of further analysis (e.g., meta-analyses and meta-regressions) or subsequent systematic reviews?

Methods

Search strategy

Systematic maps crave an objective and reproducible search of a range of sources to identify as many relevant studies as possible (within resource and fourth dimension limits). A search strategy that includes extensive search terms and a combination of multiple information sources can increment the likelihood of capturing virtually of the relevant references. Our search terms consider a listing of intervention-, upshot- and population-related keywords in six languages. Our data sources include: general scientific databases; an on-line search engine (Google Scholar); global, regional, and national specialist databases; institutional websites (to be accessed through one of the largest institutional repository search engines: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, BASE); journal websites; discipline experts/researchers; and serendipity (e.thousand., finding relevant documents by accidental discovery or by chance). The reference direction software to be used for exporting/importing the references is Citavi, which is freely available at TUM.

Nosotros aim to place as many of the available relevant studies equally possible (based on time and budget constraints). Sensitivity volition be favored over specificity. Sensitivity implies that the emphasis of the search procedure will be in obtaining about of the relevant articles at the hazard of obtaining a high number of non-relevant ones (which would demand to be depurated later on during the screening stage). On the other paw, specificity emphasizes the retrieval of relevant articles with the everyman number of non-relevant ones as possible (at the chance of omitting some/ many of the relevant manufactures).

Search terms

Search terms related to the intervention

The selected search terms related to the intervention (GM crops) in the English language are presented in Table  1. These search terms were derived from a preliminary list of 29 GM crop related terms compiled past experts from the GRACE project (see Additional file 2). IDEAS/REPEC, the largest freely-available bibliographic database dedicated to economics, was used to examination this preliminary list. Search terms which did non retrieve relevant references (e.m., cisgenesis) or which retrieved similar references as other search terms (due east.g., glufosinate tolerant did not retrieve additional relevant references in comparing to herbicide tolerant) were dropped from the list. The searches were conducted on title, abstract, and keywords. Then AGROVOC, the corporate thesaurus of the Food and Agronomics System (FAO), was searched for controlled termsg which were also included as search terms (e.g., biosafety, biosecurity). Finally the titles from the reference lists of the reviews and meta-analysis included in the Additional file 1 were visually examined to evaluate the completeness of our selected search terms, and new search terms were added when needed (e.g., Bollgard, drought resistant).

Tabular array 1 Listing of search terms in English language

Full size table

Additional searches using the selected terms were conducted in Web of Science (All databases) in Topic (Title, abstract, keywords). Some of the terms retrieved loftier number of records (e.g., bt retrieves 78,027 references; and three,310 when restricted by enquiry domains: social sciences and arts humanities), virtually of them were not related to GM crops. Therefore the last intervention terms include a descriptor (due east.g., bt crop*) or the type of ingather (e.g., bt cotton). The types of crops were compiled from the list of approved crops by GM trait reported in the "GM approval database" by the International Service for the Conquering of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA, http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/default.asp). In this manner, we obtained a reasonable number of references. For example, for bt as a group ("bt crop*" or "bt seed*" or "bt cotton" or "bt maize" or "bt corn" or "bt soybean" or "bt tomato" or "bt eggplant" or "bt rice" or "bt potato"), nosotros obtained 300 references (restricted by research domains: social sciences and art humanities). Chiefly, most of those references were relevant.

In the case of non-English languages, the preliminary list of GM related terms was translated to Chinese, French, German language, Castilian, and Portuguese, and each term was then tested in Google Scholar, which allows for the retrieval of a comprehensive number of references in each of the non-English languages considered. Before conducting the independent test runs per keyword and language, Google Scholar was gear up for retrieving results in the corresponding language, and the search history personalization (customization of results based on previous search activeness) was deactivated Searches were conducted in total-text. Terms which retrieved relevant studies among the top 10 pct of the records obtained per search term (ordered past relevance) were selected as search terms, and the remaining were dropped. AGROVOC was likewise searched for controlled terms in those languages, but additional relevant terms were not found. In addition, reviews of the socio-economic impacts of GM crops using literature in the languages selected in this protocol were not found; even so, a visual evaluation of the reference list of some relevant manufactures in those languages suggested that the selected terms are adequate. The list of selected search terms in non-English languages is included in the Additional file two.

Search terms related to the effect and population

A comprehensive list of 380 terms related to the outcome and population was compiled in the English language and translated into the non-English languages considered in this protocol. And then, nosotros selected the consequence and population terms that retrieved the largest number of relevant references, based on visual inspections from the results of IDEAS/REPEC for English searches. The descriptors per topic considered in this protocol (farmers, consumers, supply chain, coexistence, ecology economics, and food security) were also included as additional search terms. The selected outcome and population terms for searches in the English language are included in Tabular array  1. Note that outcome and population terms will exist joined past OR while conducting the actual searches. Thus, "environmental economics" is not directly included in the list as a population term since econ*, a more than general term, is already in the listing of search terms. Whatever potential results of searches for "environmental economics" will be already captured in the results of the searches for econ*.

The original list of the 380 terms and the corresponding translations in non-English languages are included in the Boosted file 3.

Database searches

Database selection

Little testify exists to guide prioritization of databases for reviewers [51]. Our criteria for database selection considered the following aspects:

  1. a)

    subject expanse (socio-economics);

  2. b)

    geographic coverage of the studies (eastward.g., databases roofing developing countries); and

  3. c)

    inclusion of primary studies.

We gave preference to databases that allow for directly exporting batch results to the reference software, can think full text documents, or provide links to access those studies. However, relevant databases in non-English languages do not provide those facilities (eastward.g., a number of the Spanish-language databases), and therefore we will non strictly restrict our searches to "convenient" databases.

We excluded databases that practice not represent to our field of study areas (due east.g., biochemistry); practise not focus on primary studies (e.one thousand., newspapers); are redundant (included in other databases or platforms; eastward.thou., BIOSIS Previews and Current Contents Connect which are included under Tum'due south subscription to Web of Scientific discipline); require boosted payment; or databases that are unavailable or inaccessible at the present time (eastward.g., databases undergoing major restructuring).

The list and a general description of the selected databases, platforms, and search engines for searches in the English linguistic communication are provided in Table  2, while the selected databases for searches in non-English languages are included in the Additional file 4.

Table ii Selected databases, platforms, and search engines for searches in English language

Full size tabular array

Information technology is expected that the selected databases will offer adept coverage of the literature available in each of the six languages included in this protocol. An overview of the content of all the selected databases, platforms, and search engines (in English language and non-English) is provided in the Additional file five.

Overall search procedure for databases

Our overall search strategy for searches in the English language considers the following:

  1. a)

    searches will be conducted on "title, abstruse or keyword", when this option is available. If the database does not offering this facility, searches volition exist conducted in the common default choice "all fields". Nevertheless, searches in Google Scholar, Base, and Agricola volition be conducted in "title" due to the large number of references obtainable;

  2. b)

    searches will exist limited to the fourth dimension period from 1996 (the year GM crops were commercially introduced to farmers) to nowadays;

  3. c)

    searches will be filtered by type of certificate (article, affiliate, volume, thesis, manuscript, and conference paper) and socio-economical subjects or disciplines (if the database provides these facilities);

  4. d)

    searches will be conducted using only the intervention terms in socio-economic related databases (IDEAS/REPEC, British Library for Development, IFPRI, JOLIS, and OECD iLibrary) and in databases providing socio-economical filters (Web of Science, Scopus, ELDIS, Agricola, BASE, and Open Grey). There is no demand to combine the intervention terms with the result and population terms in these databases. Without doing so, they provide a manageable number of results primarily related to the socio-economic problems of GM crops;

  5. e)

    intervention terms will be combined with the issue and population terms in searches conducted in databases non related to socio-economic issues or without socio-economical filters (Google Scholar and AGRIS) in order to avoid obtaining a large number of irrelevant results.

The procedure for searches in not-English languages is described in the Additional file vi.

Estimating the comprehensiveness of the search

Specific search strategies must be constructed for each database indicated above. Some databases allow truncation, stemming, and searches with strings, while others only partially or exercise not let doing then. When a database does not let truncation or stemming, dissimilar words endings (or suffixes) need to be used for conducting the searches (for example, with Google Scholar). During our scoping practice, we identified the full number of records obtained from searches in each of the databases included in our protocol. The results for the searches in English are reported in Table  three. The details of the searches per database in English, and the results of the searches for non-English languages are included in the Additional file 7.

Table three Number of references identified per database in English language

Full size tabular array

The results propose that it is possible to follow the proposed search strategy. The total number of references (without eliminating duplicates) from all the databases in the English linguistic communication is 38,781. Based on visual inspections, we roughly estimate that about one third will exist duplicates. (Many searches volition be conducted per keyword and and so joined, which will generate many duplicates in the last list of references). In the end, we expect to manually screen about 26,000 references from searches in databases in the English language.

Validation of search strategies

Following Hausner et al., we will validate our search strategy by checking if the relevant references from the reviews and meta-analyses included in the Additional file ane are amongst our included studies. In the event that the references were non retrieved, we will refine the search strategies until nosotros are able to call back those references.

Searches in journals

No database is capable of exhaustively monitoring all existing journals. Nosotros retrieved a listing of journals, which contained articles related to the socio-economic impacts of GM crops based on the results of a search conducted in IDEAS/REPEC using the search terms "genetically modified" and "transgenic" in 2012. Information technology is expected that some of these journals are already indexed in one or more of the databases considered in this protocol, peculiarly the loftier ranked journals. (For example, Scopus indexes the journals published by Elsevier and other selected journals based on their quality. Encounter the full listing of 33,635 journals and conferences at http://world wide web.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus/content-overview). We volition check if the journals in our list mentioned above are already fully indexed in our selected databases, and those which are non indexed or partially indexed (e.g., no 'cover to comprehend' or some years missing) will be searched manually. The consummate list of (93) journals (in English language) is included in the Additional file 8.

Subject skillful consultation

When eligible and advisable, including completed yet unpublished studies in a systematic map helps to minimize bias [56]. Too requesting and obtaining lists of publications from experts could allow the states to verify if we take retrieved all the relevant data and could assist united states of america to make full potential information gaps in our data collection. Finally, it is also important to place ongoing studies/inquiry related to the socio-economic impacts of GM crops worldwide. Therefore, we look to comport an online survey requesting experts for their published and unpublished studies; and for information near previous and current projects, which are related to socio-economical impacts of GM crops. The draft version of the questionnaire is included in the Additional file 9. The list of experts will be primarily compiled using lists of authors given in the included studies and data gained from worldwide economic organizations virtually authors in this field (see http://edirc.repec.org/alphabet.html).

Study inclusion criteria

Our inclusion criteria specify the types of populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study designs, to be addressed in the systematic map. The identified studies volition be screened against these criteria in social club to be included in the systematic map. Our screening process will be conducted stepwise (see Figure  8). Offset, the studies volition be screened against the inclusion criteria by title (and abstract when available). The studies which exercise not fulfill the inclusion criteria will be excluded. In example of dubiousness, the study volition be retained for further evaluation. Second, nosotros will review the abstract and full text of the manufactures, and in a like mode, the studies that do non fulfill the general inclusion criteria volition exist excluded. In case of doubt, the study will be retained for further analysis.

Figure eight
figure 8

Procedure for screening of studies.

Total size epitome

The general inclusion criteria are the post-obit:

  • Relevant Population: Global human civilizations and their economies

  • Relevant Intervention: availability/adoption/commercialization of any type of crop (due east.thou., maize, soybean, cotton, canola) with any type of genetic modification (e.m., herbicide resistance, insect resistance)

  • Relevant Comparator: situation before the availability/adoption/commercialization or without the intervention for a comparable grouping of populationh

  • Relevant Outcome: economical quantification or social analysis of the effects of the intervention

  • Relevant Study design: principal report (survey/interview, observational/ethnographic, model or experiment)

The exclusion criteria consider studies which are not related to GM crops (e.1000., animals and microorganisms); do non include a comparator (which permit for an impact cess); are in a language not considered in this protocol; are published before 1996; are not primary studies (e.grand., newspapers, editorials, opinions, literature reviews); or are not accessible.

The included testify volition be coded using criteria for classifying the included studies. The elements of these criteria are related to the topics considered in this protocol and are summarized in Table  4 below.

Table iv Criteria for classifying included studies

Full size table

Information technology is important to mention that we will brand our best attempt to remember the full text of all potential relevant studies subsequently the first screening, given fourth dimension and budget constraints. The maximum amount of time we are considering for finishing collecting all the data for the systematic map is six months, which includes the time we will dedicate to contacting the authors of missing references.i In example nosotros are not able find the full texts of potential relevant references, these references will be excluded from the analysis but included in a list of potential relevant studies (with full text not bachelor) in the last systematic map.

Our team currently composed of x reviewers will screen the studies identified during the systematic searches in different languages to exclude irrelevant titles. The reviewers will too perform a random screening of 10 pct of the studies from one of the other reviewers, and a Cohen's Kappa coefficient will exist calculated to measure the caste of inter-reviewer agreement. If the Kappa value is less than 0.5, the reviewers will examine their differences, and possible errors will be corrected to ensure a reliable screening procedure.

Data extraction strategy

Studies that pass the inclusion criteria volition be imported into a database. Each study will be coded based on the following information:

  • General information about the report (authors, yr of publication, affiliation, donor)

  • Type of publication (due east.g., peer-review article, non peer-review manuscript/article, volume, book chapters)

  • Location of the study (e.m., region, state, country, locality)

  • Description of the population (e.thousand., boilerplate age, gender, education)

  • Type of crop and GM traits (e.g., Bt cotton wool)

  • Blazon of evaluation method (due east.g., propensity score matching, differences in differences)

  • Other relevant qualitative information, especially when the study blueprint is but qualitative (east.thou., descriptions from ethnographic studies).

Data presentation

The information presentation will include descriptive statistics by type of socio-economic bear upon; population; geographical focus of the evidence (eastward.g., developed and developing countries); research methods; and changes on time (or time trends) when possible.

The final outcomes of this protocol will exist a systematic map written report on the socio-economic impacts of GM crops worldwide based on the prove available in six languages, and a searchable database (including the list of references of the included studies, along with the information extracted from those studies; the listing of excluded studies and reasons for exclusion; and the listing of potentially relevant studies with full text not available). Also the review procedure will be documented and included in an open-acess database named "Central Access Database for Bear on Assessment of Crop Genetic Comeback Technologies" (CADIMA, http://world wide web.cadima.info/) which is currently under development by members of the GRACE project.

Endnotes

aWithal, as indicated past a reviewer, systematic maps can also be used to map narrow questions, especially where the studies pertaining to a particular topic are unlikely to meet the criteria for quantitative synthesis (or meta-assay).

bSystematic maps and systematic reviews follow the same structured methodologies. Notwithstanding, systematic reviews, in dissimilarity to systematic maps, include an testify synthesis and are set out to critically appraise the evidence. Both systematic maps and systematic reviews are considered stand-lone pieces of review of the evidence. Even so, systematic maps tin too be undertaken as the first step before conducting systematic reviews, which would be but undertaken if at that place is sufficient quantity and quality of testify on specific sub-topics (for example, the Example project [57] conducted first a wide systematic map and then subsequent systematic reviews on detail sub-topics identified from the systematic map). Tum may comport subsequent systematic reviews, which will depend on the amount of prove found in detail sub-topics and time availability later finishing the systematic map. Given the case, TUM will elaborate additional contained protocols before conducting the systematic reviews. The full duration of the GRACE projection is from 2012 to 2015.

cAnother establishment, the Heart for European Policy Studies (CEPS), is in charge of reviewing the evidence at the "macro-level" (socio-economic impacts at the sectoral and macro level, trade impacts of GM crops, and politics of GM crops).

dThe stakeholder consultation process is existence facilitated by the working parcel/grouping "Stakeholder and user involvement" of the GRACE projection (see GRACE [7]).

eastwardIn the context of the GRACE project, ecology economics is defined as the economic furnishings or consequences of current or potential environmental impacts.

fThe other iii top languages used for publication of research are Dutch, Italian, and Russian [9].

mControlled terms are standardized subject terms used by a database to categorize manufactures based on the content. In contrast, free terms are natural linguistic communication terms (i.east., terms included in the championship of a document).

hThe comparators are associated with "before-afterwards" and "with-without" evaluations, which allows decision-making for selectivity bias.

iNosotros await to stop the whole systematic map in a maximum of fifteen months.

References

  1. Smale M, Zambrano P, Gruere G, Falck-Zepeda J, Matuschke I, Horna D, Nagarajan L, Yerramareddy I, Jones H: Measuring the Economic Impacts of Transgenic Crops in Developing Agronomics during the First Decade. Approaches, Findings and Future Directions. Washington: U.s.a.: Food Policy Review 10. IFPRI; 2009.

    Google Scholar

  2. Chen H, Lin Y: Promise and issues of genetically modified crops. Curr Opin Found Biol 2013, sixteen: i–6. x.1016/j.pbi.2013.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar

  3. National Research Council Commission on the Bear on of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability. Lath on Agriculture and Natural Resources. In The Touch of Genetically Engineered Crops on farm Sustainability in the U.s.. United states of america: The National Academic Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar

  4. Smale G, Zambrano P, Falck-Zepeda J, Gruere One thousand: Parables: Applied Economical Literature nigh the Impact of Genetically Engineered Crop Varieties in Developing Countries. Washington: USA: EPT Give-and-take Paper 158. IFPRI; 2006.

    Google Scholar

  5. Bragge P, Clavisi O, Turner T, Tavender E, Collie A, Gruen R: The global evidence mapping initiative: scoping research in broad topic areas. Med Res Methodol 2011, 11: 1–12. 10.1186/1471-2288-11-1

    Article  Google Scholar

  6. Hall C, Knight B, Ringrose South, Knox O: What have been the subcontract-level economic impacts of the global cultivation of GM crops? Systematic Review. Environ Evid 2013, CEE Review 11–002. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CEE11–002.pdf

    Google Scholar

  7. GRACE: GMO risk assessment and communication of evidence - GRACE. (Description of Piece of work - Annex I, Part B). FP7 Collaborative Project. 2012.

    Google Scholar

  8. GRACE: GRACE Stakeholder Consultation on Good Review Practice in GMO Impact Assessment. Office ii: Stakeholder priorities for review questions- Review questions on socioeconomic impacts. 2013.

    Google Scholar

  9. van Weijen D: The linguistic communication of (time to come) scientific communication. [http://www.researchtrends.com/issue-31-november-2012/the-language-of-hereafter-scientific-advice/]

  10. ISAAA: Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops. 2012. [http://www.isaaa.org/]

    Google Scholar

  11. Zambrano P, Maldonado J, Mendoza Due south, Ruiz L, Fonseca L, Cardona I: Women Cotton Farmers. Their Perceptions and Experience with Transgenic Varieties. A Case Study for Colombia. Washington, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute. Discussion Newspaper 01118; 2011.

    Google Scholar

  12. Yoo D: Individual and Social Learning in Bio-Applied science Adoption: The Case of GM Corn in the U.S. Seattle, USA: Newspaper presented at Agricultural and Applied Economic science Association Annual Meeting; 2012.

    Google Scholar

  13. Uematsu H, Mishra A: Net Effect of Educational activity on Technology Adoption by U.South. Farmers. Orlando, USA: Newspaper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting; 2010.

    Google Scholar

  14. Jaramillo P, Useche P, Barhan B, Foltz J: The State Contingent Arroyo to Farmers' Valuation and Adoption of New Biotech Crops: Nitrogen-Fertilizer Saving and Drought Tolerance Traits. Denver, Colorado: Paper presented at the Agronomical and Applied Economics Clan Annual Meeting; 2010.

    Google Scholar

  15. Gaurav S, Mishra Southward: To Bt or not to Bt? Risk and Uncertainty Considerations in Technology Assessment. Mumbai, India: Working newspaper from Indira Gandhi Found of Development; 2012.

    Google Scholar

  16. Birol E, Villalba Eastward, Smale M: Farmer preferences for millpa diverseness and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent form approach. Environ Dev 2009, 14: 521–540. 10.1017/S1355770X08004944

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  17. Krishna 5, Qaim 5: Bt cotton and sustainability of pesticide reductions in India. Agric Syst 2012, 107: 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar

  18. Mutuc Chiliad, Rejesus R, Pan S, Yorobe J: Impact assessment of Bt corn adoption in the Philippines. J Agric Appl Econ 2012, 44: 117–135.

    Google Scholar

  19. Huang J, Hu R, Rozelle S, Qiao F, Pray C: Transgenic varieties and productivity of smallholder cotton farmers in China. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 2002, 46: 367–387. 10.1111/1467-8489.00184

    Article  Google Scholar

  20. Bennett R, Morse S, Ismael Y: The economic touch on of genetically modified cotton wool on Due south African smallholders: yield, profit and health effects. J Dev Stud 2006, 42: 662–677. 10.1080/00220380600682215

    Article  Google Scholar

  21. Anderson 1000, Jackson L, Nielsen C: Genetically Modified Rice Adoption: Implications for Welfare and Poverty Consolation. World Depository financial institution Policy Enquiry. Working Paper 3380; 2004.

    Book  Google Scholar

  22. Lipton K: Plant breeding and poverty: can transgenic seeds replicate the 'Green Revolution' every bit a source of gains for the poor? J Dev Stud 2007, 43: 31–62. 10.1080/00220380601055510

    Article  Google Scholar

  23. Davis A, Mitoh T: Dying in the USA and Nippon: selected legal and ethical issues. Int Nurs Rev 1999,46(five):135–139. 10.1046/j.1466-7657.46.no.5issue347.10.ten

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  24. Groeneveld R, Wesseler J, Berentsen P: Dominos in the dairy: an analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming. Ecol Econ 2013, 86: 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar

  25. Consmüller N, Beckmann V, Petrick M: Identifying driving factors for the establishment of cooperative GMO-gratuitous zones in Deutschland. Foz do Iguacu, Brazil: Paper presented at Conference of the International Association of Agronomical Economists; 2012.

    Google Scholar

  26. Gray E, Ancev T, Drynan R: Coexistence of GM and non-GM crops with endogenously determined separation. Ecol Econ 2011, 70: 2486. x.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar

  27. Falck-Zepeda J: Coexistence, genetically modified biotechnologies and biosafety: implications for developing countries. Am J Agric Econ 2006, 88: 1200–1208. 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2006.00933.ten

    Article  Google Scholar

  28. Wilson W, Dahl B: Costs and risks of testing and segregating genetically modified wheat. Rev Agric Econ 2005, 27: 212–228. 10.1111/j.1467-9353.2005.00222.x

    Article  Google Scholar

  29. Coleno F, Angevin F, Lecroart B: A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and crosspollination risk management. Agric Syst 2009, 101: 49–56. ten.1016/j.agsy.2009.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar

  30. Moss C, Schmitz T, Schmitz A: The brave new world: imperfect information, segregation costs, and genetically modified organisms. Agrarwirtschaft 2004, 53: 303–308.

    Google Scholar

  31. Gryson N, Eeckhout T, Neijens T: Cost and Benefits for the Segregation of GM and Non-GM Compound Feed. Gent, Belgium: Paper presented at XII EAAE Congress; 2008.

    Google Scholar

  32. Kalaitzandonakes Due north, Matsbarger R, Barnes J: Global identity preservation costs in agricultural supply chains. Can J Agric Econ 2001, 49: 605–615. 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2001.tb00330.x

    Article  Google Scholar

  33. Potato J, Yanacopulos H: Understanding governance and networks: EU-U.s. interactions and the regulation of genetically modified organisms. Geoforum 2005, 36: 593–606. ten.1016/j.geoforum.2004.ten.001

    Article  Google Scholar

  34. Smyth S, Phillips P: Competitors co-operating; establishing a supply concatenation to manage genetically modified canola. Int Food Agribus Human being 2001, 4: 51–66. x.1016/S1096-7508(01)00070-2

    Article  Google Scholar

  35. Aerni P, Scholderer J, Ermen D: How Would Swiss Consumers Decide if they had Liberty of Choice? Evidence from a Field Study with Organic, Conventional and GM Corn Bread, 36. Washington: USA: Food Policy Review 10. IFPRI; 2011:830–838.

    Google Scholar

  36. Costa-Font M, Tranter R, Gil J, Jones P, Gylling Thousand: Exercise Defaults Matter? Willingness to Pay to Avoid GM Food vis-à-vis Organic and Conventional Nutrient in Denmark, Great United kingdom and Spain. Edinburgh, Scotland: Paper presented at the 84th Conference of Agricultural Economic science; 2010.

    Google Scholar

  37. Kikulke Eastward, Birol E, Wesseler J, Falck-Zepeda J: A latent course approach to investigating demand for genetically modified banana in Uganda. Agric Econ 2011, 42: 547–560. 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00529.10

    Article  Google Scholar

  38. Donaghy P, Rolfe J, Bennett J: Quasi-Option Values for Enhanced Information Regarding Genetically Modified Foods. Melbourne, Commonwealth of australia: Paper presented at the 48th Australian Agronomical and Resource Economic science Society; 2004.

    Google Scholar

  39. Lusk J, House Fifty, Valli C, Jaeger Due south, Moore 1000, Morrow B, Traill B: Consumer welfare effects of introducing and labeling genetically modified foods. Econ Lett 2005, 88: 382–388. 10.1016/j.econlet.2005.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar

  40. Brookes Grand, Barfoot P: GM Crops: Global Socio-Economical and Ecology Impacts 1996–2011. UK: PG Economics Ltd; 2013.

    Google Scholar

  41. Ando A, Khanna Thousand: Environmental costs and benefits of genetically modified crops. Implications for regulatory strategies. Am Behav Sci 2000, 44: 435–463. 10.1177/00027640021956279

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  42. Raven P: Does the use of transgenic plants diminish or promote biodiversity? New Biotechnol 2010,27(v):528–533. ten.1016/j.nbt.2010.07.018

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  43. Batie Southward: The ecology impacts of genetically modified plants: challenges to decision making. Am J Agric Econ 2003, 85: 1107–1111. ten.1111/j.0092-5853.2003.00516.x

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  44. Knox O, Hall C, McVittie A, Walker R, Knight B: A systematic review of the environmental impacts of GM ingather cultivation as reported from 2006 to 2011. Food Nutr Sci 2013, four: 28–44.

    Article  Google Scholar

  45. Mannion A, Morse S: Biotechnology in agriculture: agronomic and environmental considerations and reflections based on 15 years of GM crops. Prog Phys Geogr 2012, 36: 747–763. 10.1177/0309133312457109

    Article  Google Scholar

  46. Lemaux P: Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist's analysis of the issues (Part II). Annu Rev Plant Biol 2009, 60: 511–559. x.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092013

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  47. FAO: The State of Food Insecurity in the World. The Multiple Dimensions of Food Security. Rome: FAO; 2013.

    Google Scholar

  48. Ruane J, Sonnino A: Agricultural biotechnologies in developing countries and their possible contribution to nutrient security. J Biotechnol 2011, 156: 356–363. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2011.06.013

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  49. Carletto C, Zezza A, Banerjee R: Towards ameliorate measurement of household food security: harmonizing indicators and the role of household surveys. Global Food Security 2013, ii: 30–forty. x.1016/j.gfs.2012.xi.006

    Article  Google Scholar

  50. Dibden J, Gibbs D, Cocklin C: Framing GM crops every bit a food security solution. J Rural Stud 2013, 29: 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar

  51. Beyer F, Wright Thousand: Can we prioritise which databases to search? A example report using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management. Health Inf Libr J 2012, 30: 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar

  52. Delgado Due east, Repiso R: The touch of scientific journals of communication: comparing Google Scholar metrics, Web of Scientific discipline and Scopus. Comunicar 2013, 41: 45–52.

    Google Scholar

  53. Gehanno J, Rollin L, Darmoni S: Is the coverage of google scholar plenty to be used solitary for systematic reviews. BMC Med Informat Decis Making 2013, 13: 1–5. x.1186/1472-6947-xiii-one

    Article  Google Scholar

  54. Giustini D, Boulus One thousand: Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. Online J Public Health Inform 2013, 5: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar

  55. BASE: About BASE. [http://www.base-search.net/about/en/alphabetize.php]

  56. Hammerstrom K, Wade A, Jorgensen A: Searching for Studies: A Guide to Information Retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews. UK: The Campbell Collaboration; 2010.

    Google Scholar

  57. Tripney J, Newman One thousand, Bird K, Thomas J, Kalra Due north, Bangpan M, Vigurs C: Understanding the drivers, impact and value of date in civilisation and sport: Technical report for the systematic review and database. UK: The Example Plan; 2010.

    Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

Jiao Xu, Camilo Lopez, and Oliver Etzel provided support with the searches in different databases and languages. Roi Duran provided inputs related to the translation of the search terms in Portuguese. H.Al-Asadi translated the search terms to French, selected the language-specific databases and conducted searches in this language (no longer member of the GRACE squad). The authors are grateful to the vi reviewers from CEE who provided useful comments and suggestions to this protocol.

Sources of support

The research is funded by the FP7 project GRACE.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Chair of Agronomical and Food Economics, Alte Akademie 12, 85354, Freising, Frg

    Jaqueline Garcia-Yi & Justus Wesseler

  2. Plan on Sustainable Resource Direction, Hans-Carl-von- Carlowitz-Platz ii, 85354, Freising, Federal republic of germany

    Tiptunya Lapikanonth, Hanum Vionita, Hanh Vu, Shuang Yang, Yating Zhong, Yifei Li & Veronika Nagelschneider

  3. Library of the Technical Academy of Munich, Co-operative Weihenstephan, Maximus-von-Imhof-Forum 1-three, 85354, Freising, Deutschland

    Birgid Schlindwein

  4. Chair of Agronomical Economics and Rural Policy, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg one, 6706KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Justus Wesseler

Respective author

Correspondence to Jaqueline Garcia-Yi.

Boosted information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

JGY drafted the protocol and selected the search terms in English language and Spanish; and the databases in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. TL, HV, HVu, SY, and YZ conducted searches in the databases in English. YL, & VN translated the search terms from English to Chinese, and German, respectively; selected the corresponding language-specific databases; and conducted searches in those languages. BS provided support with the Citavi reference software and comments related to the search strategies in English language and German. JW is the person responsible for the GRACE project at TUM and indicated the scope of the work (topics to be covered and languages). All authors read and approved the concluding manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

Authors' original submitted files for images

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open up Admission article distributed under the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/past/4.0), which permits unrestricted utilise, distribution, and reproduction in whatever medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Eatables Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/nothing/1.0/) applies to the data fabricated available in this commodity, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

Nearly this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this commodity

Garcia-Yi, J., Lapikanonth, T., Vionita, H. et al. What are the socio-economic impacts of genetically modified crops worldwide? A systematic map protocol. Environ Evid 3, 24 (2014). https://doi.org/x.1186/2047-2382-3-24

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-3-24

Keywords

  • Systematic map
  • Socio-economics impacts
  • Genetically modified organism
  • Crop
  • Chinese
  • English
  • French
  • High german
  • Portuguese
  • Spanish

knowltonapereens.blogspot.com

Source: https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2047-2382-3-24

0 Response to "How Does Gmo Help the Environment Peer Review"

Publicar un comentario

Suscribirse a: Comentarios de la entrada (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel