Transgenic crops, EU precaution, and developing countries

Anderson, Kym; Jackson, Lee Ann

doi:10.1504/ijtg.2006.009127

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there remains strong opposition by some consumers and governments of large countries to GM food production and imports, the returns from such research will be dampened, both absolutely and relative to efforts to produce non-food GM crops (cotton, biofuels and other industrial crops). R&D on the latter will reduce the upward pressure that demands for those non-food crops would otherwise put on food prices, but the anti-GM food stance will continue to reduce the potential for biotechnology to lower food prices in countries where GM food is discouraged or banned—with major implications for bilateral trade flows since it effectively divides the world food supplies into two separate markets ( Anderson & Jackson 2006 ).…”

Section: Future Drivers and Uncertainties To 2050mentioning

confidence: 99%

Globalization's effects on world agricultural trade, 1960–2050

Anderson

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent globalization has been characterized by a decline in the costs of cross-border trade in farm and other products. It has been driven primarily by the information and communication technology revolution and—in the case of farm products—by reductions in governmental distortions to agricultural production, consumption and trade. Both have boosted economic growth and reduced poverty globally, especially in Asia. The first but maybe not the second of these drivers will continue in coming decades. World food prices will depend also on whether (and if so by how much) farm productivity growth continues to outpace demand growth and to what extent diets in emerging economies move towards livestock and horticultural products at the expense of staples. Demand in turn will be driven not only by population and income growth, but also by crude oil prices if they remain at current historically high levels, since that will affect biofuel demand. Climate change mitigation policies and adaptation, water market developments and market access standards particularly for transgenic foods will add to future production, price and trade uncertainties.

show abstract

Section: Future Drivers and Uncertainties To 2050mentioning

confidence: 99%

Globalization's effects on world agricultural trade, 1960–2050

Anderson

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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

“…Biotechnology regulation is said to support agrochemical companies, either by creating higher returns on investment in biotechnology or by protecting against the comparative disadvantage from not investing in biotechnology (Graff and Zilberman 2004). In this view, the European ban of GM products serves as a protectionist non-tariff barrier to trade (Lapan and Moschini 2004), and protects the European agrochemical firms who are dominant in the traditional crop-protection market (Anderson and Jackson 2006;Graff and Zilberman 2007). Additionally, Anderson et al (2004) argue that EU farmers lobby in favor of GM regulation because farmers in countries such as the US and Brazil have a comparative advantage applying biotechnology.…”

Section: : "[F]rom the 1960s Through The Mid 1980s American Regulatormentioning

confidence: 99%

On Butterflies and Frankenstein: A Dynamic Theory of Regulation

Swinnen

Vandemoortele²

2011

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. www.econstor.eu Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractThere are major differences in regulation among various countries. A particular case is the difference between the EU and US in regulating biotechnology. We develop a formal and dynamic model of government decision-making on regulation. We show that minor differences in consumer preferences can lead to important and persistent regulatory differences, and that temporary shocks to preferences can have long-lasting effects. This hysteresis in regulatory differences is shown to be caused by producer protectionist motives. We argue that this model may contribute to explain the difference between EU and US biotechnology regulation.

show abstract

Transgenic crops, EU precaution, and developing countries

Cited by 17 publications

References 27 publications

Globalization's effects on world agricultural trade, 1960–2050

Globalization's effects on world agricultural trade, 1960–2050

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

On Butterflies and Frankenstein: A Dynamic Theory of Regulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About