观点:新作物科学的吸收:成功与失败的原因

IF 6.8 1区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Food Policy Pub Date : 2023-12-08 DOI:10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102572
Robert Paarlberg , Anjanabha Bhattacharya , Jikun Huang , Margaret Karembu , Carl Pray , Justus Wesseler
{"title":"观点:新作物科学的吸收:成功与失败的原因","authors":"Robert Paarlberg ,&nbsp;Anjanabha Bhattacharya ,&nbsp;Jikun Huang ,&nbsp;Margaret Karembu ,&nbsp;Carl Pray ,&nbsp;Justus Wesseler","doi":"10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>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<span> 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 </span></span>GMOs. A preliminary scan of national regulatory decisions being made toward genome-edited seeds strengthens this prediction.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":321,"journal":{"name":"Food Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Viewpoint: The uptake of new crop science: Explaining success, and failure\",\"authors\":\"Robert Paarlberg ,&nbsp;Anjanabha Bhattacharya ,&nbsp;Jikun Huang ,&nbsp;Margaret Karembu ,&nbsp;Carl Pray ,&nbsp;Justus Wesseler\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102572\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>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<span> 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 </span></span>GMOs. A preliminary scan of national regulatory decisions being made toward genome-edited seeds strengthens this prediction.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919223001707\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Policy","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919223001707","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

新作物科学的应用往往能广泛传播到农田,但有时却不能。20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代首次发布的绿色革命种子得到了广泛而迅速的应用,但 20 世纪 90 年代首次发布的转基因生物种子虽然也表现出色,却一直受到严格限制。二十多年过去了,全球 84% 的转基因作物种植面积仍然只在四个西半球国家,97.2% 的总种植面积仍然只种植四种作物。六个 "成功因素 "的存在与否可以解释这些不同的吸收轨迹。这些成功因素包括:1)社会广泛认同提高粮食产量的迫切性;2)农民在种植新种子时能立即得到明显的好处;3)社会信任生产和提供新技术的机构;4)消费者没有新的食品安全顾虑;5)没有来自环保倡导团体的有组织的反对;6)没有检测新种子基因改变的简单方法。绿色革命的种子具备了上述所有六个成功因素,而转基因生物种子只具备了其中的一个。同样的方法也可用于预测基因组编辑作物的未来吸收率,它显示了六项成功因素中的三项,预测的吸收率比绿色革命慢,但比转基因生物更广更快。对各国针对基因组编辑种子所做监管决定的初步扫描加强了这一预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Viewpoint: The uptake of new crop science: Explaining success, and failure

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Food Policy
Food Policy 管理科学-农业经济与政策
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.60%
发文量
128
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Food Policy is a multidisciplinary journal publishing original research and novel evidence on issues in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies for the food sector in developing, transition, and advanced economies. Our main focus is on the economic and social aspect of food policy, and we prioritize empirical studies informing international food policy debates. Provided that articles make a clear and explicit contribution to food policy debates of international interest, we consider papers from any of the social sciences. Papers from other disciplines (e.g., law) will be considered only if they provide a key policy contribution, and are written in a style which is accessible to a social science readership.
期刊最新文献
Towards sustainable beef: The role of altruistic preference in the value chain transformation Food politics in China: How strengthened accountability enhances food security Making ends meet in refugee camps: Food distribution cycles, consumption and undernutrition Between dissonance and confusion: When the Nutri-Score as a nutritional signal is misinterpreted Assessing misallocation in agriculture: Plots versus farms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1