Who pays the costs of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation?
AbstractThis paper proposes an analytical framework to examine the market and welfare impacts of GMOs, when some consumers refuse genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and when two supply channels are segregated (one for goods that containing GMOs and one for non-genetically-modified identity-preserved goods). Our analytical framework begins at the level of individual farmers, handlers and consumers, to build up market supply and demand functions. This allows us to circumvent the difficulties of conducting supply and demand analysis in the different horizontally and vertically related markets concerned by GMOs and market segregation. We represent explicitly the costs of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation (IP) for both producers of non-GM IP goods and producers of non-IP goods, and how these costs vary depending on the relative sizes of the two production channels. We then illustrate our model by a simulation of potential adoption of GM rapeseed with non-GMO market segregation in the European Union (EU). We analyze how the costs of IP are distributed among heterogenous producers, handlers and consumers in this simulation.
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 European Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain with number 24973.
Date of creation: 2002
Date of revision:
genetically modified organisms; consumers'; non genetically modified product; segregation; innovation; multi-market analysis; Consumer/Household Economics;
Other versions of this item:
- Marion Desquilbet & David S. Bullock, 2003. "Who Pays the Costs of Non-GMO Segregation and Identity Preservation?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 656-672.
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.:
- William D. McBride & Nora Books, 2000.
"Survey evidence on producer use and costs of genetically modified seed,"
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 6-20.
- McBride, William D. & Books, Nora, 2000. "Survey Evidence On Producer Use And Costs Of Genetically Modified Seed," Proceedings:Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 26009, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
- Giannakas, Konstantinos & Fulton, Murray, 2002. "Consumption effects of genetic modification: what if consumers are right?," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 97-109, August.
- Desquilbet, Marion & Lemarie, Stephane & Levert, Fabrice, 2002. "Potential Adoption of Genetically Modified Rapeseed in France, Effects on Revenues of Farmers and Upstream Companies: an ex ante evaluation," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24975, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
- Mayer, Holly & Furtan, W. H., 1999. "Economics of transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola: The case of western Canada," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 431-442, August.
- Bullock, David S. & Desquilbet, Marion & Nitsi, Elisavet I., 2000.
"The Economics Of Non-Gmo Segregation And Identity Preservation,"
2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL
21845, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
- Bullock, D. S. & Desquilbet, M., 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-99, February.
- 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.
- Andrei Sobolevsky & GianCarlo Moschini & Harvey E. Lapan, 2002.
"Genetically Modified Crop Innovations and Product Differentiation: Trade and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex,"
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications
02-wp319, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
- Sobolevsky, Andrei & Moschini, GianCarlo & Lapan, Harvey E., 2002. "Genetically Modified Crop Innovations and Product Differentiation: Trade and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex," Staff General Research Papers 10098, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- 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).
- Marion Desquilbet & Sylvaine Poret, 2014. "How do GM/non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 51-82, February.
- 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.
- Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2002. "Trade in genetically modified food," TMD discussion papers 106, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
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.