nonetheless, thus far these benefits have been monopolized mainly by the large producers and agroindustries (see Box 1-7). Internationally, 90% of the producers who grow transgenics, i.e., 9.3 million, are small-scale producers, but they are almost all in China (6.8 million) and India (2.3 million) (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006; James, 2006). In LAC, most transgenics crops are planted in large tracts in monoculture.

          Although the promoters of transgenic crops argue that this technology benefits small-scale producers and that it is a sound tool for fighting poverty and hunger in the world (Pray et al., 2002; James, 2006), there are very few empirical studies that verify these assertions for LAC. In a recent study of Roundup-resistant soybean in Argentina, Qaim and Traxler (2005) concluded that transgenic soybean was more profitable than conventional soybean and that small-scale producers benefited the most. A second study on the adoption

    of Bt cotton by producers in Coahuila, Mexico reached a similar conclusion (Traxler and Godoy-Avila, 2004). Both cases represent special situations. In the case of Argentina the producers do not pay for the “intellectual property rights” for the transgenic seed. Moreover, the classification of “small” includes producers of up to 100 ha with access to capital (Qaim and Traxler, 2005). In the case of Mexico, the producers pay intellectual property rights to the company Monsanto/D&PL, but they receive credit from the government to purchase the transgenic seed. In this case the benefit accrued largely due to the financial and technical support provided by the government and by the implementation of other plant protection programs (Traxler and Godoy-Avila,
2004).

The technology of transgenics has brought about major transformations in the environment and society in some