GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2022 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Donations
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE EDITING MYTHS AND REALITY

A guide through the smokescreen

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

ON-TARGET EFFECTS OF GENE EDITING

Damaged DNA

CITIZENS’ GUIDE TO GM

GMO Myths and Truths front cover

LATEST VIDEOS

  • Herbicide-tolerant/Bt cotton chaos in Indian fields
  • Seed keepers and truth tellers: From the frontlines of GM agriculture
  • Myths and Truths of Gene-Edited Foods

KEVIN FOLTA: A rogue’s gallery

Roundup, dollars and Kevin Folta

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

How stats are cooked to wrongly claim success for GM crops in Africa

Details
Published: 10 September 2022
Twitter

Gezira Scheme cotton farmer in white on trial field Sudan

Prof Brian Dowd-Uribe explains that only considering averages obscures the fact that Bt cotton made rich farmers richer but poor and medium farmers poorer

Development expert Brian Dowd-Uribe, associate professor at the University of San Francisco, has produced a tweetorial on how it's misleading to use average yields to claim success for GM crops in Africa. He writes, "Too often averages are used to claim success... when what is (also/more) important is the standard deviation" – the amount of variation in a set of values.

Taking the example of GM Bt cotton in Burkina Faso, he writes, "GM cotton was supposed to boost yields for small farmers in Burkina Faso. Field trials projected an average yield gain of 34%. But these field trials had significant biases."

Dowd-Uribe points out that the field trials gave inflated figures – actual average yield increases in farmers' fields were only 13%.

He adds, "Still, some hailed this as 'a runaway success' noting that the average farmer is making significant gains."

But he goes on to explain that focusing on standard deviation shows such enthusiasm is premature: "Because of the initial high seed costs and other factors, many poorer and marginalized farmers didn't adopt GM cotton from the beginning.

"Then Fok and Vognan showed how yield and profit gains were split between rich, medium and poor producers. They found that rich farmers had a yield gain of +33% and a profitability gain of +43% with GM cotton. But medium producers only had an +8% yield gain, and poor producers had -11% yield decrease with GM cotton. Both lost money. Medium producers had a -8% profit decline (due to increased costs) and poor producers had a -46% profit decline."

Dowd-Uribe concludes, "If we want new technologies to work for everyone, we must evaluate them with the standard deviation in mind. Its not a success if only the most well-off benefit."

Dominic Glover, research fellow at the Institute of Development Studies in Brighton, replies to Dowd-Uribe, "Absolutely. The same basic mistake was made in evaluations of Bt cotton in India 15 years ago… the diversity and stratification of impacts was obvious in the data, but usually only the central tendency (generally an average) was highlighted as a 'success'."

Dowd-Uribe's tweetorial comes in the wake of two thorough debunkings of recent claims heavily hyped in Science Magazine and the media of higher yields for GM crops.

Image of cotton farmer by NSAG (Nederlands studenten Afrika Gezelschap) via Wiki Commons, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

Non-GM Successes

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2023 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design