Skip to main content

Table 4 Results for the 2nd research question

From: What are the non-food impacts of GM crop cultivation on farmers’ health?

Coding 5 8
ID of the form Morse and Bennett (2008) Wang et al. (2008)
Bibliographic reference (main article) S Morse, R Bennett (2008). Impact of Bt cotton on farmer livelihoods in South Africa. International Journal of Biotechnology 10(2–3): 224–239 G Wang, Y Wu, W Gao, M Fok, W Liang (2008). Impact of Bt cotton on the farmer’s livelihood system in China. Integrating Social Science Research Into Cotton Reform Implementation lined with the international outlook (ISSCRI) International Conference, 13–17 May 2008, Montpellier, France
Country/ region South Africa/ Hlokoloko, lying at the centre of Makhathini Flats in KwaZulu Natal China/ Guangzong, Shenzhou and Hejian counties; main cotton production areas in Hebei province
Methodology Survey 2 years. Follow-up survey of members previously interviewed in 2001. Semi-structured questionnaires. One farmer organisation Survey 2 years
Intermediary outcomes 88 out of 100 respondents claimed that they benefited in terms of higher income Net incomes: 2002: 8708.6 yuan/ha (GM cotton) vs 3059.4 yuan/ha (non-GM); in 2003: 13633.3 yuan/ha (GM) vs 7231.7 yuan/ha (non-GM). How was the income calculated (not including labour)?
Final outcomes The increased income was not used to improve health; ‘spend on themselves’ includes entertainment, electronic goods and clothes Increased income translated into increased expenditures on education, leisure and health care; was a significant correlation between the transportation, communication, education, health care expenditure and cotton income through the canonical coefficient analysis
Main sources of bias 1. Only one area studied; 2. producer recall was used, although farmers were interviewed about recent data (same season and the previous one); 3. differences between GM and non-GM farmers were not analysed; 4. no confounding variables in the calculation of farmers’ income 1. Only one area studied; 2. producer recall was used, although farmers were interviewed about recent data (same season interview); 3. differences between GM and non-GM farmers were not analysed; 4. no measures to deal with attrition
Other comments Increased income was registered as a perception. Actual numbers on Gross Margin were compiled to see any differences between seasons (no differences). There was no baseline or benchmark to compare before/after situation Some contradiction about the weather: in 2003 weather it is stated was favourable to cotton toward the end of the article and unfavourable at the beginning