WHY ARE US AND EU POLICIES TOWARD GMOs SO DIFFERENT?
AbstractThe development of genetically modified (GM) agricultural products requires new policies to manage potential food safety and environmental risks. The policy positions taken to date on GM foods by the United States and the European Union are very different. The US has few restrictions on production and trade in GM food products and no costly labelling requirements, whereas the EU has close to a ban on the production and importation of GM foods. This paper seeks to explain (a) why both the US and EU policies are extreme in the light of the uncertainty about the risks associated with GM foods, (b) what their consequences are for income distribution and trade in farm products, and (c) what it means for the GM policies and economic welfare of people in other (particularly developing) countries. In this paper we use the GTAP global economy wide model to estimate the extent of the trade, national welfare and income distributional effects of the actual policy choices of the US and the EU as compared with what they would be if GM products were adopted with less-distortionary GM policies. The distributional effects are used to also shed light on why the US and EU have adopted such different sub-optimal GM policies.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia with number 57898.
Date of creation: Feb 2003
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www.aares.info/
More information through EDIRC
genetically modified crops; trade barriers; productivity growth; political economy of agricultural protection; Agricultural and Food Policy; Crop Production/Industries; International Relations/Trade;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kym Anderson & Shunli Yao, 2003.
"China, Gmos And World Trade In Agricultural And Textile Products,"
Pacific Economic Review,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 157-169, 06.
- Anderson, Kym & Yao, Shunli, 2002. "China, GMOs and World Trade in Agricultural and Textile Products," CEPR Discussion Papers 3171, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Mishra, Ashok K. & El-Osta, Hisham S. & Morehart, Mitchell J. & Johnson, James D. & Hopkins, Jeffrey W., 2002. "Income, Wealth, And The Economic Well-Being Of Farm Households," Agricultural Economics Reports 33967, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
- Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1992.
"Protection for Sale,"
162, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
- Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1992. "Protection for Sale," Papers 21-92, Tel Aviv.
- Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1992. "Protection For Sale," NBER Working Papers 4149, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Grossman, Gene & Helpman, Elhanan, 1993. "Protection for Sale," CEPR Discussion Papers 827, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Baldwin, Robert E, 1989. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 119-35, Fall.
- Anderson, Kym, 1995.
"Lobbying Incentives and the Pattern of Protection in Rich and Poor Countries,"
Economic Development and Cultural Change,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 401-23, January.
- Anderson, Kym, 1993. "Lobbying Incentives and the Pattern of Protection in Rich and Poor Countries," CEPR Discussion Papers 789, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Stone, Susan F. & Matysek, Anna & Dolling, Andrew, 2002.
"Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade,"
Staff Research Papers
31913, Productivity Commission.
- Susan Stone & ; Anna Matysek & ; Andrew Dolling, 2003. "Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade," Urban/Regional 0304002, EconWPA.
- Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Thierfelder, Karen & Robinson, Sherman, 2001. "Genetically modified foods, trade, and developing countries," TMD discussion papers 77, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
- Chantal Nielsen & Kym Anderson, 2001. "Global market effects of alternative European responses to genetically modified organisms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 320-346, June.
- Meijl, Hans van & Tongeren, Frank van, 2004.
"International diffusion of gains from biotechnology and the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy,"
Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 307-316, December.
- van Tongeren, Frank W. & van Meijl, Hans, 2003. "International Diffusion Of Gains From Biotechnology And The European Union'S Common Agricultural Policy," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25835, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
- Baldwin, Richard, 2000. "Regulatory Protectionism, Developing Nations and a Two-Tier World Trade System," CEPR Discussion Papers 2574, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Marchant, Mary A. & Song, Baohui, 2005. "Assessment of Biotechnology Policies and International Trade in Key Markets for U.S. Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(02), August.
- Gruere, Guillaume P. & Carter, Colin A. & Farzin, Y. Hossein, 2004. "Explaining International Differences In Genetically Modified Food Labeling Regulations," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20341, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
- Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann & Nielsen, Chantal Pohl, 2004.
"Genetically modified rice adoption : implications for welfare and poverty alleviation,"
Policy Research Working Paper Series
3380, The World Bank.
- Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2005. "Genetically Modified Rice Adoption: Implications for Welfare and Poverty Alleviation," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 20, pages 771-788.
- Kym Anderson & Lee Ann Jacskon & Chantal Pohl Nielsen, 2004. "Genetically Modified Rice Adoption: Implications for Welfare and Poverty Alleviation," Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers 2004-13, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
- Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "Implications of genetically modified food technology policies for Sub-Saharan Africa," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3411, The World Bank.
- Chantal Pohl Nielsen & Kym Anderson, 2003.
"Golden Rice and the Looming GMO Trade Debate: Implication for the Poor,"
Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers
2003-22, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
- Anderson, Kym & Pohl Nielsen, Chantal, 2004. "Golden Rice and the Looming GMO Trade Debate: Implications for the Poor," CEPR Discussion Papers 4195, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.