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.
G. Gruere was a Senior Research Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, when writing this chapter. He can be contacted by e-mail at ggruere@gmail.com.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 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.
- 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.
References
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):332–340
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):522–533
Demont M, Dillen K, Daems W et al (2009) On the proportionality of EU spatial ex antecoexistence regulations. Food Pol 34(6):508–518
Elbehri A, MacDonald S (2004) Estimating the impact of transgenic Bt cotton on west and central africa: a general equilibrium approach. World Dev 32:2049–2064
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 (2009) Asynchronous approvals of GM products, price inflation, and the codex annex: what low level presence policy for APEC countries? Conference paper presented at the 2009 IATRC summer symposium. Pullman, WA: International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium. http://iatrc.software.umn.edu/activities/symposia/2009Seattle/seattle-Gruere.pdf
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):399–406
Gruere GP, Sengupta D (2009b) Biosafety and perceived commercial risks: the role of GM free private standards. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00847. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00847.pdf
Gruere GP, Sengupta D (2010) Reviewing South Africa’s marketing and trade related policies for genetically modified products. Dev South Afr 27(3):333–352
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):736–743
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):459–475
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 88:739–744
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 30:385–398
Ledford H (2007) Out of bounds. Nature 445:132
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 25:777–794
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):519–551
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):51–73
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gruère, G. (2014). National Trade Interests. In: Ludlow, K., Smyth, S., Falck-Zepeda, J. (eds) Socio-Economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 37. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9440-9_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9440-9_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-9439-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-9440-9
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)