↓ Skip to main content

Use of genetically modified crops and pesticides in Brazil: growing hazards

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 1,909)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
103 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Use of genetically modified crops and pesticides in Brazil: growing hazards
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2017
DOI 10.1590/1413-812320172210.17112017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vicente Eduardo Soares de Almeida, Karen Friedrich, Alan Freihof Tygel, Leonardo Melgarejo, Fernando Ferreira Carneiro

Abstract

Genetically modified (GM) crops were officially authorized in Brazil in 2003. In this documentary study, we aimed to identify possible changes in the patterns of pesticide use after the adoption of this technology over a span of 13 years (2000 to 2012). The following variables were analyzed: Pesticide use (kg), Pesticide use per capita (kg/inhab), Pesticide and herbicide use per area (kg/ha) and productivity (kg/ha). Contrary to the initial expectations of decreasing pesticide use following the adoption of GM crops, overall pesticide use in Brazil increased 1.6-fold between the years 2000 and 2012. During the same period, pesticide use for soybean increased 3-fold. This study shows that the adoption of GM crops in Brazil has led to an increase in pesticide use with possible increases in environmental and human exposure and associated negative impacts.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 103 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Unspecified 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 19 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 19%
Chemistry 4 8%
Unspecified 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 19 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 105. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2022.
All research outputs
#362,899
of 23,860,197 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#3
of 1,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,213
of 324,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,860,197 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,909 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.