This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Biosafety decisions and perceived commercial risks: The role of GM-free private standards

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Gruère, Guillaume
Sengupta, Debdatta

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

"We herein investigate the observed discrepancy between real and perceived commercial risks associated with the use of genetically modified (GM) products in developing countries. We focus particularly on the effects of GM-free private standards set up by food companies in Europe and other countries on biotechnology and biosafety policy decisions in food-exporting developing countries. Based on field visits made to South Africa, Namibia, and Kenya in June 2007, and secondary information from the press and various publications, we find 31 cases of interactions between private GM-free standards and biosafety policy decisions in 21 countries. Although we cannot infer the direct involvement of supermarkets and food companies in biosafety policy processes in developing countries, we find that by setting up GM-free standards, these actors are indirectly influential via their local traders, who face the possibility of exclusion if they do not comply with the standards. Organic producers' and anti-GM organizations also play a role in spreading perceptions of commercial risks that are not always justified. By comparing cases, we differentiate three types of relevant commercial risks: real risks, potential risks, and unproven risks. We then identify two critical, yet misleading, presumptions perpetuated by the various interest groups to spread the fear of potential or unproven risks: the infeasibility of non-GM product segregation and the lack of alternative buyers. We also find that information asymmetries and risk-averse behaviors related to perceived market power can help insert unfounded export concerns into biosafety or biotechnology policy decisions. The results of our analysis are used to suggest a simple framework to separate real commercial risks from others, based on five critical questions designed to aid decision makers when they face pressures to reject GM crop testing, application, consumption or use for fear of alleged export losses. " from authors' abstract

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00847.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in its series IFPRI discussion papers with number 847.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:847

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-862-5600
Fax: 202-467-4439
Email:
Web page: http://www.ifpri.org/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().

Related research
Keywords: Genetically modified food; Private standards; International trade; Biosafety; Science and technology; biotechnology; Developing countries;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? About 1000 archives contribute their bibliographic data to RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-20.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.