On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: Potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports

Henseler, Martin; Piot-Lepetit, Isabelle; Ferrari, Emanuele; Mellado, Aida Gonzalez; Banse, Martin; Grethe, Harald; Parisi, Claudia; Sophie, Helaine

doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.05.005

Cited by 43 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Delays in authorising GE crops postpone their benefits and cause economic losses in foregone profits. Losses are further exaggerated by asynchronous approval processes, which cause market disruptions (Vigani et al ., ), and lead to strained trading relations (Henseler et al ., ; De Steur et al ., ; de Faria and Wieck, ) that in some cases have escalated to formal international disputes (Punt and Wesseler, ). Potential environmental and human health benefits are also delayed (Wesseler et al ., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union

Smart

Blum²,

Wesseler

2016

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetically engineered (GE) crops are subject to regulatory oversight to ensure their safety for humans and the environment. Their approval in the European Union (EU) starts with an application in a given Member State followed by a scientific risk assessment, and ends with a political decision‐making step (risk management). In the United States (US) approval begins with a scientific (field trial) step and ends with a ‘bureaucratic’ decision‐making step. We investigate trends for the time taken for these steps and the overall time taken for approving GE crops in the US and the EU. Our results show that from 1996–2015 the overall time trend for approval in the EU decreased and then flattened off, with an overall mean completion‐time of 1,763 days. In the US in 1998 there was a break in the trend of the overall approval time. Initially, from 1988 until 1997 the trend decreased with a mean approval time of 1,321 days; from 1998–2015, the trend almost stagnated with a mean approval time of 2,467 days.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union

Smart

Blum²,

Wesseler

2016

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A substantial number of these papers portray the strict EU regulations as negative for the EU economy or trade, generally without being more specific about how or for whom this would be negative (e.g., References [55][56][57][58]). For example, Francis et al [58] argue that the EU policy on GM crops not only prevents production of GM crops, but also causes the EU to lag behind as an agricultural region compared with the US and the Global South, as it results in higher than otherwise estimated levels of imports and less research and development.…”

Section: Policy and Market Issues Researched In Africa And Europementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A comparison of the issues discussed in the Africa and Europe literature indicated more engagement in the former with how different policies affect farmers and how policy affects different types of farmers differently [7,49,62,63], whereas more of the Europe literature broadly discusses effects of policy on overall trade between the EU and countries outside the EU [55,56,58,64]. In both bodies of literature, attention is paid to the differences between and the effects of US and EU policies [30,33,53,54,59,60,[65][66][67][68][69].…”

Section: Policy and Market Issues Researched In Africa And Europementioning

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

“…The need to provide quality feeds rich in protein for animal feeding is increasingly challenging. In Europe, for example, most of the proteins that are required in animal feeding are satisfied by importing the soybean and its products (Borreani et al, 2006;Henseler et al, 2013). At the same time, modern agriculture with the increased use of agrochemicals, mechanization, and monoculture practices have led to a degradation of agro-ecosystems and the environment (Lithourgidis et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forage Yield and Protein Content of Different Field Pea Cultivars and Oat Mixtures Grown as Winter Crops

Krga¹,

Simić²,

Mandić³

et al. 2019

Turkish Journal of Field Crops

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monoculture and intensive use of mechanization and inorganic chemicals are leading to degradation and erosion of our soils and agro-ecosystems. At the same time, the production of animal feeds that are rich in protein is constantly decreasing in many European countries. Modest cultivation needs, favorable content of nutrients, and beneficial effect on the environment, make field pea and oat mixtures promising crops to tackle these issues. In three growing seasons and without irrigation or fertilisation, we have examined two basic field pea cultivars (Kosmaj, OS Adam) and one leafless cultivar (OS Letin) intercropped with oat (NS Jadar), with seeding rates, field pea: oat-100:10%; 100:20%. Results have shown that basic type cultivars have better overall development and higher yields compared to leafless cultivar, whether grown as single crops or in the mixture. Basic cultivars (OS Adam, Kosmaj) achieved higher protein content, compared to cultivar Letin, 163.9 g kg-1 , 153.3 g kg-1 , 136 g kg-1 , respectively. Yields were higher in 100:20% mixtures, compared to 100:10% mixtures and single grown crops, and we conclude that intercropping these species is superior to cultivating them separately. Protein content wasn't significantly different between two seeding rates, thus seed rates shouldn't be lower than 100:20%.

show abstract

On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: Potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports

Cited by 43 publications

References 16 publications

Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union

Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union

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

Forage Yield and Protein Content of Different Field Pea Cultivars and Oat Mixtures Grown as Winter Crops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About