Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction to Socio-Economic Considerations in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2014 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

15. National Trade Interests

verfasst von : Guillaume P. Gruère

Erschienen in: Socio-Economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation

Verlag: Springer New York

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The coexistence between, and segregation of, genetically modified (GM), non-GM and organic crop production in supply chains is at the heart of the debates around the use and/or importation of specific GM products in a growing number of countries (Carter and Gruere 2012; Gruere and Sengupta 2009a). In this setting, the key question for policy-makers is how to manage negative market externalities induced by the introduction or use of GM products (Golan and Kuchler 2002; Moschini and Lapan 2006). Field testing and/or producing a GM crop may generate unintentional movements of pollen or seed to non-GM crops or fields. Introducing a GM product in a market chain (whether from the farm or via imports) may result in accidental comingling affecting non-GM supply chains. In a larger setting, adopting or importing GM crops may taint the reputation of non-GM marketing chain actors. In each of these cases, non-GM marketing chain actors may suffer economic losses due to market share restrictions or price decline.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Market Access and Trade
Nächstes Kapitel Producer Choice
Fußnoten
1
In the rest of the chapter, we use the GM/non-GM denomination to avoid confusion between non-GM market actors that do face risks and are concerned about living organisms that are not modified and their derivatives, from the case of non-LMOs, which would include processed grains and products derived from LMOs, but that are considered GM. Furthermore, GM and non-GM products are the common terms used in the literature.
 
2
For a list of estimates of segregation cost, see Gruere (2009). On coexistence, see for instance NRC (2010) on the US and Messean et al. (2006) on Europe, and the regulatory option discussion and references in Demont et al. (2009) and Beckmann et al. (2011).
 
3
A number of recent court decisions against the USDA-APHIS have shown that the agency usually considers most cases not worthy of pursuing a full environmental impact analysis (including coexistence).
 
4
This discussion for risk assessment bears some similarities with issues related to Smyth et al.’s (2006) analysis of options for managing liabilities from GM crops. While liabilities occur after risk realization, the same contrast between private and public resolution occurs. Smyth et al. (2006) propose three options: one private, one scientific and regulatory, and one based on market strategies. Of these three, the scientific option may not be directly relevant for an application ready to advance, but could enter into discussions of management options.
 
Literatur
Beckmann V, Soregaroli C, Wesseler J (2011) Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-modified (non-GM) crops: are the two main property rights regimes equivalent with respect to the coexistence value? In: Carter C, Moschini G, Sheldon IM (eds) Genetically modified food and global welfare. Frontiers of Economics and Globalization, vol 10. Emerald, Bingley
Berwald D, Carter CA, Gruere GP (2006) Rejecting new technology: the case of genetically modified wheat. Am J Agric Econ 88(2):432–447
Bett C, Okuro Ouma J, de Groote H (2010) Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food. Food Pol 35(4):332–340CrossRef
Carter CA, Gruere G (2012) New and existing GM crops: in search of effective stewardship and coexistence. Northeast Univ Law J 4(1):169–207
Carter CA, Smith AD (2007) Estimating the market effect of a food scare: the case of genetically modified starlink corn. Rev Econ Stat 89(3):522–533CrossRef
Demont M, Dillen K, Daems W et al (2009) On the proportionality of EU spatial ex antecoexistence regulations. Food Pol 34(6):508–518CrossRef
Elbehri A, MacDonald S (2004) Estimating the impact of transgenic Bt cotton on west and central africa: a general equilibrium approach. World Dev 32:2049–2064CrossRef
Frisvold GB, Reeves JM, Tronstad R (2006) Bt cotton adoption in the United States and China: international trade and welfare effects. AgBioForum 9(2):69–78
Golan E, Kuchler F (2002) Labeling biotech foods: implications for consumer welfare and trade. In: Krissoff B, Bohman M, Caswell J (eds) Global food trade and consumer demand for quality. Springer, New York
Gruere GP (2006) An Analysis of Trade Related Regulations of Genetically Modified Food and their Effects on Developing Countries. EPT Discussion Paper 147, Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Gruere GP, Cartel M (2006) Trading hot potato from farm to port: the case of Bt cotton in West Africa. Selected paper presented at the winter meeting of the IATRC 2006. International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium
Gruere GP, Rosegrant MW (2008) Assessing the implementation effects of the biosafety protocol’s proposed stringent information requirements for genetically modified commodities in countries of the Asia Pacific economic cooperation. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 30(2):214–232
Gruere GP, Sengupta D (2009a) The effects of GM-free private standards on biosafety policymaking in developing countries. Food Pol 34(5):399–406CrossRef
Gruere GP, Sengupta D (2010) Reviewing South Africa’s marketing and trade related policies for genetically modified products. Dev South Afr 27(3):333–352CrossRef
Gruere GP, Takeshima H (2012) Will they stay or will they go? The political influence of GM averse importing companies on biosafety decision makers in Africa. Am J Agric Econ 94(3):736–743CrossRef
Gruere GP, Mevel S, Bouët A (2009) Balancing productivity and trade objectives in a competing environment: should India commercialize GM rice with or without China? Agric Econ 40(4):459–475CrossRef
Gruere G, Bouet A, Mevel S (2011) International trade and welfare effects of biotechnology innovations: GM food crops in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and the Philippines. In: Carter C, Moschini G, Sheldon IM (eds) Genetically modified food and global welfare. Frontiers of Economics and Globalization, vol 10. Emerald, Bingley
Horna D, Zambrano P, Falck-Zepeda J (2013) Socioeconomic considerations in biosafety decisionmaking: Methods and implementation IFPRI Research Monograph 180, IFPRI, Washington, DC. IFPRI, Washington DC
Huygen I, Veeman M, Lerohl M (2003) Cost implications of alternative GM tolerance levels: non-genetically modified wheat in Canada. AgBioForum 6(4):169–177
Knight JG, Holdsworth D, Mather DW (2008) GM food and neophobia: connecting with the gate keepers of consumer choice. J Sci Food Agric 88:739–744CrossRef
Knight JG, Mather DW, Holdsworth D (2005) Impact of genetic modification on country image of imported food products in European markets: perception of channel members. Food Pol 30:385–398CrossRef
Messean A, Angevin F, Gómez-Barbero M et al (2006) New case studies on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops in European agriculture. European Commission Joint Research Centre (DG JRC). Institute for Prospective Technological Studies: Madrid, Spain
Moschini G-C, Lapan H (2006) Labeling regulations and segregation of first- and second-generation GM products: innovation incentives and welfare effects. In: Just RE, Alston JM, Zilberman D (eds) Regulating agricultural biotechnology: economics and policy. Springer, New York
National Research Council (NRC) (2010) The impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States. National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Nielsen CP, Thierfelder K, Robinson S (2003) Consumer preferences and trade in genetically modified foods. J Policy Model 25:777–794CrossRef
Paarlberg R (2006) Are genetically modified crops a commercial risk for Africa? J Tech Glob 2(1–2):81–92
Paarlberg R (2008) Starved for science. How biotechnology is being kept out of Africa. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Ryan CD, Smyth SJ (2012) Economic implications of low-level presence in a zero-tolerance European import market: the case of Canadian triffid flax. AgBioForum 15(1):21–30
Smale M, Zambrano P, Falck-Zepeda J, Gruere GP et al (2008) The economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries: a note on methods. Int J Biotechnol 10(6):519–551CrossRef
Smyth S, Phillips PWB, Kerr WA (2006) Managing liabilities arising from agricultural biotechnology. In: Just RE, Alston JM, Zilberman D (eds) Regulating agricultural biotechnology: economics and policy. Springer, New York
Wilson WW, DeVuyst EA, Taylor RD et al (2008) Implications of biotech traits with segregation costs and market segments: the case of roundup ready wheat. Eur Rev Agric Econ 35(1):51–73CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
National Trade Interests
verfasst von
Guillaume P. Gruère
Copyright-Jahr
2014
Verlag
Springer New York
Buch
Socio-Economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation

Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-9439-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-1-4614-9440-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2014

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9440-9_15