For several staple grains, the share of trade that originates in and is destined for countries that have approved genetically engineered (GE) varieties continues to expand as a share of total trade. As the GE-world expands, non-adoption of GE technology may isolate a market, effectively eliminating a growing source of food. This research seeks to quantify the impacts of GE approval and non-approval on food prices and access to food from abroad in importing countries. We show that non-adoption of GE technology reduces a country's access to imports and raises its prices. Not only do non-approving importers fail to receive the full benefits of agricultural expansion resulting from genetic engineering, the countries are worse off relative to a world in which the technology never existed.
In 2020, the European Union (EU) introduced the new Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy, an innovative new strategy to make the EU food system sustainable. The review of the EU marketing standards for food products is implemented as part of the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy. While the deal provides an increased focus on sustainability, the new review of the marketing standards extends to factor in the potential impact of modifying the current standards on sustainability. This article identifies parts of the current marketing standards that may affect various aspects of sustainability and discusses the potential impact and trade‐offs with modifying these elements in the supply chain. To illustrate the implications of marketing standards for sustainability, we focus on three broad case studies: food waste, food chain innovation, and climate conscious consumers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.