IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/tmddps/106.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade in genetically modified food: A survey of empirical studies

Author

Listed:
  • Nielsen, Chantal Pohl
  • Robinson, Sherman
  • Thierfelder, Karen

Abstract

"New advances in biotechnology have enhanced production of maize, soybeans, and cotton. Consumer reactions to the new technology have been mixed. Both the supply shock, from an increase in productivity or a reduction in input use, and the demand shock, which is determined by the consumer response to consuming GM foods, affect production, trade, and prices of GM foods. In this paper, we survey models that analyze the market effects of GM technology. The results depend on a number of important issues such as the cost of market segmentation and labeling, the nature of the productivity shock to producers of GM products, and the extent of any adverse reaction to GM products by consumers. The results from global trade models indicate that, if costs of labelling and market segmentation are not large, world markets can adjust to the various scenarios without generating extreme price differentials between GM and non-GM commodities or extreme changes in the pattern of world production and trade. Through market linkages, the benefits of the new technology tend to be spread widely, with adopters generally gaining more than non-adopters. In particular, developing countries will benefit if they can adopt the new technologies, and get mixed results if they are non-adopters." Authors' Abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2002. "Trade in genetically modified food: A survey of empirical studies," TMD discussion papers 106, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:tmddps:106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifpri.org/cdmref/p15738coll2/id/63215/filename/63216.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burfisher, Mary E. & Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2004. "Regionalism," MTID discussion papers 65, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Giancarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan & Andrei Sobolevsky, 2000. "Roundup ready® soybeans and welfare effects in the soybean complex," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 33-55.
    3. 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.
    4. Lence, Sergio H. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2001. "Response to an Asymmetric Demand for Attributes: An Application to the Market for Genetically Modified Crops," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11397, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. 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.
    6. Pohl Nielsen, Chantal & Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2001. "Genetic Engineering and Trade: Panacea or Dilemma for Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1307-1324, August.
    7. Maskus, Keith E. & Wilson, John S. & Tsunehiro Otsuki, 2000. "Quantifying the impact of technical barriers to trade : a framework for analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2512, The World Bank.
    8. Meijl, Hans van & Tongeren, Frank van, 2004. "International diffusion of gains from biotechnology and the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 307-316, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Anderson, Kym & Yao, Shunli, 2001. "China, GMOs and World Trade in Agricultural and Textile Products," Conference papers 330922, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    12. Pray, Carl & Ma, Danmeng & Huang, Jikun & Qiao, Fangbin, 2001. "Impact of Bt Cotton in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 813-825, May.
    13. Marra, Michele C. & Pardey, Philip G. & Alston, Julian M., 2002. "The payoffs to agricultural biotechnology: an assessment of the evidence," EPTD discussion papers 87, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Huang, Jikun & Hu, Ruifa & van Meijl, Hans & van Tongeren, Frank, 2004. "Biotechnology boosts to crop productivity in China: trade and welfare implications," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 27-54, October.
    15. William A. Kerr, 1999. "International Trade in Transgenic Food Products: A New Focus for Agricultural Trade Disputes," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 245-259, March.
    16. 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, June.
    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. Chang, Ching-Cheng & Hsu, Shih-Hsun & Wu, Chia-Hsuan, 2004. "An Economy-Wide Analysis Of Gm Food Labeling Policies In Taiwan," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19929, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Gruere, Guillaume & Bouet, Antoine & Mevel, Simon, 2007. "Genetically modified food and international trade: The case of India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines," IFPRI discussion papers 740, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Frisvold, George & Reeves, Jeanne, 2015. "Genetically Modified Crops: International Trade And Trade Policy Effects," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 3(2), pages 1-13, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Konduru, Srinivasa & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Magnier, Alexandre, 2009. "GMO Testing Strategies and Implications for Trade: A Game Theoretic Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49594, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Antoine Bouët & Guillaume P. Gruère, 2011. "Refining Opportunity Cost Estimates of Not Adopting GM Cotton: An Application in Seven Sub-Saharan African Countries," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 260-279.
    7. Amrita Chatterjee & Sanjib Pohit & Arpita Ghose, 2016. "Trade and Distributional Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops in India: A CGE Analysis," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 10(3), pages 381-407, August.
    8. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2001. "Reshaping The Conventional Welfare Economics Framework For Estimating The Economic Impact Of Agricultural Biotechnology In The European Union," Working Papers 31835, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    9. Kym Anderson & Ernesto Valenzuela & Lee Ann Jackson, 2008. "Recent and Prospective Adoption of Genetically Modified Cotton: A Global Computable General Equilibrium Analysis of Economic Impacts," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(2), pages 265-296, January.
    10. Mario F. Teisl & Julie A. Caswell, 2003. "Information Policy and Genetically Modified Food: Weighting the Benefits and Costs," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 4, March.
    11. 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).
    12. Falck-Zepeda, Jose & Horna, Daniela & Smale, Melinda, 2007. "The economic impact and the distribution of benefits and risk from the adoption of insect resistant (Bt) cotton in West Africa," IFPRI discussion papers 718, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. 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.
    14. Frisvold, George B. & Bicknell, Kathryn & Bicknell, Ross, 2005. "A Preliminary Analysis of the Benefits of Introducing Apomixis into Rice," 2005 Conference, August 26-27, 2005, Nelson, New Zealand 98515, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. 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.
    16. GianCarlo Moschini & Harun Bulut & Luigi Cembalo, 2005. "On the Segregation of Genetically Modified, Conventional and Organic Products in European Agriculture: A Multi‐market Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 347-372, December.
    17. John Crespi & Stéphan Marette, 2003. "“Does Contain” vs. “Does Not Contain”: Does it Matter which GMO Label is Used?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 327-344, November.
    18. Kym Anderson & Lee Ann Jackson, 2005. "GM crop technology and trade restraints: economic implications for Australia and New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 263-281, September.
    19. Guillaume P. Gruère & Simon Mevel & Antoine Bouët, 2009. "Balancing productivity and trade objectives in a competing environment: should India commercialize GM rice with or without China?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 459-475, July.
    20. Das, Gouranga Gopal, 2005. "Information age to genetic revolution: Embodied technology transfer and assimilation — A tale of two technologies," MPRA Paper 37250, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2006.

    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:fpr:tmddps:106. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.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.