IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i9p842-d626893.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EU Inspections of GM Content in Food and Feed: Are They Effective?

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco J. Areal

    (Centre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK)

  • Laura Riesgo

    (Department of Economics, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 41013 Seville, Spain)

Abstract

We investigate the effectiveness of inspecting regimes in controlling food and feed products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) non-compliant with European Commission (EC) regulations (i.e., a food/feed import containing above the 0.9% GM content threshold for food and at or above 0.1% for feed allowed by the EC regulations but not (or incorrectly) labelled or food/feed imports containing unauthorized GMOs). We collate information at the country level from EC official reports on the number of samples and cases of non-compliance identified by official controls conducted by European Member States (MS). We analyze the probability of finding non-compliant food/feed imports for a number of MS countries between 2000 and 2013, by using a hierarchical model, which interlinks the number of samples taken (i.e., inspections) with interceptions of non-compliant products. Results show that the probability of finding imported products non-compliant with EC’s GMO regulations in food and feed varies among MS countries but, in most cases, is relatively high. For instance, for imported food products in 2004, the probability of the rate of intercepting non-compliant food products being above 5% and 10% in France was 99% and 70%, respectively. However, whereas countries such as Sweden, Portugal, and Austria also show a high rate of intercepting non-compliant food, other countries such as Germany and Spain show a very low probability of finding imported food products being non-compliant. For imported feed products, the overall probability of rate of intercepting non-compliant feed products being above 5% and 10% per country and year was even higher than for imported food products (e.g., 100% in the case of Hungary in 2005). The European Union regulation needs to guide MS adequately in order to establish the optimal level of inspections, guaranteeing consumers’ freedom of choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco J. Areal & Laura Riesgo, 2021. "EU Inspections of GM Content in Food and Feed: Are They Effective?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:9:p:842-:d:626893
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/9/842/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/9/842/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    2. Sebastian Hess & Carl Johan Lagerkvist & William Redekop & Ashkan Pakseresht, 2016. "Consumers’ evaluation of biotechnologically modified food products: new evidence from a meta-survey," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(5), pages 703-736.
    3. Henseler, Martin & Piot-Lepetit, Isabelle & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mellado, Aida Gonzalez & Banse, Martin & Grethe, Harald & Parisi, Claudia & Hélaine, Sophie, 2013. "On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: Potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 166-176.
    4. Kyungsoo Nam & Heesun Lim & Byeong-il Ahn, 2020. "Information Values on the Consumer’s Valuation of non-GM Material: The Case of Cooking Oil in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, September.
    5. McAusland, Carol & Costello, Christopher, 2004. "Avoiding invasives: trade-related policies for controlling unintentional exotic species introductions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 954-977, September.
    6. Nadia Palmieri & Mariarosaria Simeone & Carlo Russo & Maria Angela Perito, 2020. "Profiling young consumers’ perceptions of GMO products: A case study on Italian undergraduate students," Post-Print hal-03384849, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pierre Boulanger & Hasan Dudu & Emanuele Ferrari & George Philippidis, 2016. "Russian Roulette at the Trade Table: A Specific Factors CGE Analysis of an Agri-food Import Ban," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 272-291, June.
    2. Zamani, Omid & Chibanda, Craig & Pelikan, Janine, 2021. "Investigating Alternative Poultry Trade Policies in the Context of African Countries: Evidence from Ghana," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315173, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Lawley, Chad, 2008. "Non-indigenous Species and Preemptive Trade Policy," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6111, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Li Li & John Robert Bautista, 2019. "Examining Personal and Media Factors Associated with Attitude towards Genetically Modified Foods among University Students in Kunming, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-14, November.
    5. Barbier, Edward B. & Bulte, Erwin H., 2004. "Introduction to the symposium on trade, renewable resources and biodiversity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 883-890, September.
    6. Heena Thanki & Sweety Shah & Harishchandra Singh Rathod & Ankit D. Oza & Dumitru Doru Burduhos-Nergis, 2022. "I Am Ready to Invest in Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) Options Only If the Returns Are Not Compromised: Individual Investors’ Intentions toward SRI," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    7. Inaba, Masaru & Nutahara, Kengo, 2009. "The role of investment wedges in the Carlstrom-Fuerst economy and business cycle accounting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 200-203, December.
    8. Burnett, Kimberly M. & D'Evelyn, Sean & Kaiser, Brooks A. & Nantamanasikarn, Porntawee & Roumasset, James A., 2008. "Beyond the lamppost: Optimal prevention and control of the Brown Tree Snake in Hawaii," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 66-74, August.
    9. Batabyal, Amitrajeet A. & Beladi, Hamid, 2009. "Trade, the damage from alien species, and the effects of protectionism under alternate market structures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 389-401, May.
    10. Erwin Bulte & Edward Barbier, 2005. "Trade and Renewable Resources in a Second Best World: An Overview," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(4), pages 423-463, April.
    11. Tu, Anh Thuy & Beghin, John C., 2005. "Tariff Escalation and Invasive Species Risk," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19518, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Ranjan, Ram & Evans, Edward A., 2007. "Private Responses to Public Incentives for Invasive Species Management," Farm and Business - The Journal of the Caribbean Agro-Economic Society, Caribbean Agro-Economic Society, vol. 7(1), pages 1-24.
    13. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    14. Andre Deppermann & Petr Havlík & Hugo Valin & Esther Boere & Mario Herrero & Joost Vervoort & Erik Mathijs, 2018. "The market impacts of shortening feed supply chains in Europe," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(6), pages 1401-1410, December.
    15. Ruth Delzeit & Robert Beach & Ruben Bibas & Wolfgang Britz & Jean Chateau & Florian Freund & Julien Lefevre & Franziska Schuenemann & Timothy Sulser & Hugo Valin & Bas van Ruijven & Matthias Weitzel &, 2020. "Linking Global CGE Models with Sectoral Models to Generate Baseline Scenarios: Approaches, Challenges, and Opportunities," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 5(1), pages 162-195, June.
    16. Tatjana Brankov & Bojan Matkovski & Marija Jeremić & Stanislav Zekić, 2022. "GMO standards in South East Europe: assessing a GMO index within the process of EU integration," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(1), pages 253-275, February.
    17. Kamal Saggi & Mark Wu, 2018. "Trade and Agricultural Disease: Import Restrictions in the Wake of the India–Agricultural Products Dispute," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 21, pages 483-506, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Warziniack, Travis W. & Finnoff, David & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Public economics of hitchhiking species and tourism-based risk to ecosystem services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 277-294.
    19. Ashkan Pakseresht & Brandon R McFadden & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2017. "Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 757-780.
    20. David Simpson, 2008. "Preventing Biological Invasions: Doing Something vs. Doing Nothing," NCEE Working Paper Series 200811, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Nov 2008.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:9:p:842-:d:626893. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.