National Trade Interests

  • Guillaume P. GruèreEmail author
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 37)


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.


Supply Chain Genetically Modify Fair Trade Genetically Modify Crop Market Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 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, BingleyGoogle Scholar
  2. Berwald D, Carter CA, Gruere GP (2006) Rejecting new technology: the case of genetically modified wheat. Am J Agric Econ 88(2):432–447Google Scholar
  3. 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):332–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter CA, Gruere G (2012) New and existing GM crops: in search of effective stewardship and coexistence. Northeast Univ Law J 4(1):169–207Google Scholar
  5. 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):522–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demont M, Dillen K, Daems W et al (2009) On the proportionality of EU spatial ex antecoexistence regulations. Food Pol 34(6):508–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elbehri A, MacDonald S (2004) Estimating the impact of transgenic Bt cotton on west and central africa: a general equilibrium approach. World Dev 32:2049–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frisvold GB, Reeves JM, Tronstad R (2006) Bt cotton adoption in the United States and China: international trade and welfare effects. AgBioForum 9(2):69–78Google Scholar
  9. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.
  12. 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 ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):214–232Google Scholar
  14. Gruere GP, Sengupta D (2009a) The effects of GM-free private standards on biosafety policymaking in developing countries. Food Pol 34(5):399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. Gruere GP, Sengupta D (2010) Reviewing South Africa’s marketing and trade related policies for genetically modified products. Dev South Afr 27(3):333–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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):736–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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):459–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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, BingleyGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Huygen I, Veeman M, Lerohl M (2003) Cost implications of alternative GM tolerance levels: non-genetically modified wheat in Canada. AgBioForum 6(4):169–177Google Scholar
  22. Knight JG, Holdsworth D, Mather DW (2008) GM food and neophobia: connecting with the gate keepers of consumer choice. J Sci Food Agric 88:739–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 30:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ledford H (2007) Out of bounds. Nature 445:132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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, SpainGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. National Research Council (NRC) (2010) The impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  28. Nielsen CP, Thierfelder K, Robinson S (2003) Consumer preferences and trade in genetically modified foods. J Policy Model 25:777–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paarlberg R (2006) Are genetically modified crops a commercial risk for Africa? J Tech Glob 2(1–2):81–92Google Scholar
  30. Paarlberg R (2008) Starved for science. How biotechnology is being kept out of Africa. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. 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):21–30Google Scholar
  32. 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):519–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 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):51–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Food Policy Research InstituteWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations