Assessing economic effects: co-existence of genetically modified maize in agriculture in France and Germany

Menrad, Klaus; Reitmeier, Daniela

doi:10.3152/030234208x285391

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Coexistence measures imposed by law prior to, during and after cultivation, and laboratory analyses for testing, identifying and quantifying the content of GM material in non-GM products will inevitably entail additional costs to ensure compliance with labelling and traceability requirements (Menrad and Reitmeier, 2008). Moreover, farmers may suffer income losses due to restrictions in crop choice and management.…”

Section: Socio-economic Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Devos

Demont

Dillen

et al. 2009

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

165

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union (EU) raises questions on the feasibility of coexistence between GM and non-GM crops. Regulations to ensure that different cropping systems can develop side-by-side without excluding any agricultural option are currently implemented or developed by member states. The aim of this review is to explore whether nationally or regionally proposed coexistence strategies comply with the general principles established by the European Commission that ask for science-based and proportionate coexistence measures. In the first part, existing legal requirements and potential sources of adventitious mixing are reviewed. It is discussed what type of coexistence measures might be necessary to keep GM inputs below the legal tolerance threshold of 0.9%. Concentrating on cross-fertilisation as the major biological source of adventitious mixing in maize, it is then assessed to which extent available scientific data on cross-fertilisation can explain the diversity of currently proposed isolation distances by several member states. In the second part, it is analysed whether currently proposed isolation distances reflect contending policy objectives towards GM crops that largely exceed the economic scope of coexistence. It is investigated how coexistence is intersecting with a wider debate about the role of GM crops in agriculture. Based on the analysis of existing cross-fertilisation data, it is concluded that some of the currently proposed isolation distances are not in line with the coexistence principles laid down by the European Commission: they are (i) excessive from a scientific point of view; (ii) difficult to implement in practice; (iii) rarely proportional to the regional heterogeneity in the agricultural landscape; and (iv) not proportional to the farmers' basic economic incentives for coexistence. Hence, the range of proposed isolation distances cannot simply be explained by different interpretations of available scientific data, possible error intervals and remaining uncertainties inherent in the scientific process. It is argued that other than scientific issues must be at play. One might thus claim that coexistence has become an arena of contending values and visions on the future of agriculture and on the role GM crops might play therein.adventitious mixing / Bt-maize / coexistence / cross-fertilisation / flexible measures / genetically modified (GM) crops / isolation distances / liability / fixed measures / sustainable development

show abstract

Section: Socio-economic Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Devos

Demont

Dillen

et al. 2009

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

165

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, our analysis indicated the opposite, with the Africa literature frequently being based on local empirical material such as surveys or dedicated interviews with farmers (e.g., References [62,71,77]). In contrast, the Europe literature is generally much more abstract, drawing on large, externally derived datasets, simulations and predictions about the future [81][82][83]93,[117][118][119] or calculations of how much farmers are losing economically from not being allowed to plant GM crops [84]. One paper in the Europe group (on Scotland) stands out as having empirically investigated farmers' attitudes to GM crops [85].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Science Studies on European and African Agriculture Compared: Bringing Together Different Strands of Academic Debate on GM Crops

Fischer

Eriksson

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored the social science-orientated literature on genetically modified (GM) crops in Europe and compared it with the corresponding literature on GM crops in African contexts, in order to determine the nature and extent of north-south cross-fertilisation in the literature. A total of 1625 papers on GM crops and agriculture falling within the 'social science and humanities' subject area in the Scopus abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature were analysed for major trends relating to geographical areas. More detailed analysis was performed on papers discussing African (56 papers) and European (127 papers) contexts. The analysis revealed that studies on policy and politics were common in both strands of the literature, frequently focusing on effects of the relatively restrictive European Union regulations on GM crops. There were also clear differences, however. For example, papers focusing on Africa frequently examined farm-level impacts and production, while this theme was almost non-existent in the Europe literature. It focused instead on policy impacts on trade and consumer attitudes to GM products. The lack of farm-level studies and of empirical studies in general in the European literature indicates a need for empirical research on GM crops in European farming. Social science research on GM crop production in Europe could draw lessons from the African literature.

show abstract

“…With regard to working time, three sources of information were available to us: the survey results, details from the literature (Bock et al, 2002;Tolstrup et al, 2003;GomezBarbero et al, 2008;Menrad & Reitmeier, 2008;Schiefer et al, 2008) and normative calculations from Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon's work-economics planning documents . In order to express the working time in monetary terms, a remuneration rate of CHF 27 per working hour (MPh) or CHF 0.45 per working minute (MPmin) was assumed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The moratorium on GMP in Switzerland makes it difficult to determine these costs empirically, so studies from countries where commercial GMP cultivation is presently undertaken (e.g. Spain and Germany) serve as a reference point for this study (Bock et al, 2002;Gomez-Barbero et al, 2008;Menrad & Reitmeier, 2008;Schiefer et al, 2008;Kìistkovà, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Coexistence costs for genetically modified crops for Switzerland

Vögeli

Wolf

Lips

2010

Food Economics - Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ban on the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) wheat and maize in Switzerland is expected to remain in force until 2013. Coexistence regulations in Switzerland and their resulting impacts on profitability will then require examination. In this paper we present time and cost calculations for what we consider to be the most critical of these coexistence measures. Coexistence measures and their associated costs, based upon the present structure of Swiss Agriculture, are calculated according to varying degrees of restriction and or technical feasibility. We find that, in spite of the small-scale Swiss farm structure, the costs for the coexistence measures are minimal at the farm level. The total costs of implementing coexistence measures per hectare of GM crop plantings range from CHF 58 to CHF 160, this corresponds to roughly 1Á3% of total product costs, and are negligible.

show abstract

Assessing economic effects: co-existence of genetically modified maize in agriculture in France and Germany

Cited by 5 publications

References 2 publications

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Social Science Studies on European and African Agriculture Compared: Bringing Together Different Strands of Academic Debate on GM Crops

Coexistence costs for genetically modified crops for Switzerland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About