IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecpoli/v16y2001i33p264-299..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some simple economics of GM food

Author

Listed:
  • Dietmar Harhoff
  • Pierre Régibeau
  • Katharine Rockett

Abstract

Summary Genetically modified food Evaluating the econamic risksPublic opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops (GM food) has not been based solely on concern about biological risks. Economic risks have been widely cited too: the fear that the world’s food supply will be concentrated in the hands of a few large firms, the fear that such firms will engage or are already engaging in anti–competitive practices, and the fear of the transfer of ownership rights over genetic resources to the private sector. Are these fears justified? We argue that the GM food industry may be on course for further consolidation, and this could be anti–competitive. In fact, policymakers face a dilemma: a stringent regulatory approval process enhances food safety, but at the cost of increasing market concentration. We argue also that the integration of seed and agri–chemical manufacturers may bias the introduction of GM traits in undesirable directions. Some business practices (such as tie–in contracts between seeds and complementary products such as herbicides) may have an exclusionary motive that warrants scrutiny on anti–competitive grounds, while some other practices (such as the use of terminator genes) appear more benign. Finally, we argue against granting patents on genes or even on gene ‘functions’. Doing so may delay the development of socially beneficial applications.— Dietmar Harhoff, Pierre Régibeau and katharine Rockett

Suggested Citation

  • Dietmar Harhoff & Pierre Régibeau & Katharine Rockett, 2001. "Some simple economics of GM food," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 16(33), pages 264-299.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecpoli:v:16:y:2001:i:33:p:264-299.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1468-0327.00076
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew Bowman, 2015. "Sovereignty, Risk and Biotechnology: Zambia's 2002 GM Controversy in Retrospect," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 46(6), pages 1369-1391, November.
    2. Fletcher, Stanley M. & Nadolnyak, Denis A., 2005. "Biotechnology and International Competitiveness: Implications for Southern U.S. Agriculture: Discussion," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-6, August.
    3. Mads Greaker & Yuyu Chen, 2006. "Can voluntary product-labeling replace trade bans in the case of GMOs?," Discussion Papers 485, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    4. Sergio H. Lence & Dermot J. Hayes, 2008. "Welfare Impacts of Cross-Country Spillovers in Agricultural Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(1), pages 197-215.
    5. Iulie Aslaksen & Anne Ingeborg Myhr, 2006. ""The worth of a wildflower" Precautionary perspectives on the environmental risk of GMOs," Discussion Papers 476, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    6. Pellegrini, Pablo A., 2013. "What risks and for whom? Argentina's regulatory policies and global commercial interests in GMOs," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 129-138.
    7. Nadolnyak, Denis A. & Sheldon, Ian M., 2002. "A Model Of Development Of Agricultural Biotechnological Innovations: Patent Policy Analysis," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19802, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Andreas Fier & Dietmar Harhoff, 2002. "Die Evolution der bundesdeutschen Forschungs– und Technologiepolitik: Rückblick und Bestandsaufnahme," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(3), pages 279-301, August.
    9. Iulie Aslaksen & Bent Natvig & Inger Nordal, 2004. "Environmental risk and the precautionary principle. "Late lessons from early warnings" applied to genetically modified plants," Discussion Papers 398, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    10. Nolan, Elizabeth & Santos, Paulo, 2009. "Evidence for increasing concentration in plant breeding industries in the United States and the European Union," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48060, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Cadot, Olivier & Suwa-Eisenmann, Akiko & Traça, Daniel, 2003. "OGM et relations commerciales transatlantiques," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    12. Aslaksen, Iulie & Ingeborg Myhr, Anne, 2007. ""The worth of a wildflower": Precautionary perspectives on the environmental risk of GMOs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 489-497, January.
    13. Sheldon, Ian M., 2017. "The Competitiveness Of Agricultural Product And Input Markets: A Review And Synthesis Of Recent Research," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 1-44, February.
    14. Sheldon, Ian M., 2008. "The Biotechnology Sector: "Bounds" to Market Structure," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6078, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Giovanni Dosi & Joseph Stiglitz, 2013. "The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Development Process, with Some Lessons from Developed Countries: An Introduction," LEM Papers Series 2013/23, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:ecpoli:v:16:y:2001:i:33:p:264-299.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cebruuk.html .

    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.