On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations: A comment
AbstractIn their recent article in this journal, Demont et al. (2009) discuss the effects of alternative spatial ex ante coexistence regulations (SEACERs) in the context of the EU regulatory framework. We retain from Demont et al. (2009) that small pollen barriers should be considered as a possible regulatory option in all identifiable situations in which they are as effective as large isolation distances. This idea is in accordance with the proportionality principle of the 2003 EC Recommendation. But further analysis of how consumer choice and consumer welfare are affected should be conducted before supporting the idea that SEACERs should be flexible, that is that GMO farmers should always have the option of paying their non-GMO neighbours to implement the SEACERs in their own fields. We reject the authors' argument that pollen barriers are necessarily more easily negotiable among neighbours (more "flexible") than are isolation distances. We contest the relation of proportionality to the size of market signals for IP products. We contest the idea of shifting coexistence regulation from ex ante to ex post. We believe that any economic analysis of coexistence measures should include their welfare effects on consumers as well as on producers.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Food Policy.
Volume (Year): 35 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (February)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol
Biotechnology Coexistence Policy analysis Externality Coordination Ex ante and ex post regulation;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Skevas, Theodoros & Fevereiro, Pedro & Wesseler, Justus, 2010. "Coexistence regulations and agriculture production: A case study of five Bt maize producers in Portugal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2402-2408, October.
- Desquilbet, Marion & Poret, Sylvaine, 2012.
"How do GM / non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?,"
TSE Working Papers
12-350, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
- Desquilbet, Marion & Poret, Sylvaine, 2011. "How do GM / non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114757, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
- Rolf A. Groeneveld & Erik Ansink & Clemens C.M. Van de Wiel & Justus Wesseler, 2011. "Benefits and Costs of Biologically Contained Genetically Modified Tomatoes and Eggplants in Italy and Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(8), pages 1265-1281, August.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.