IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/253071.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulatory System Impacts on Global GM Crop Adoption Patterns

Author

Listed:
  • Gleim, Savannah
  • Smyth, Stuart J.
  • Phillips, Peter W.B.

Abstract

When GM crops were first commercialized, science-based risk assessments and regulations were applied to ensure food (human and animal) and environmental safety. Early adopting countries were Argentina, Canada, China, Europe and the United States. Over the intervening 20 years, commercial production spread to an additional 25 countries. With 20 years of adoption history, it is possible to assess if the diffusion of regulations away from a primarily science-based approach has impacted not only the adoption of GM crops, but also the diffusion of specific GM traits. By assessing GM crop adoption patterns it is possible to gain insights into the relationship between regulatory systems and adoption. To do this an analysis of adoption patterns has been utilized. The objective of the analysis is to look for differences and trends in GM crop adoption across traits, countries and years of diffusion. Timelines of adoption are used to show the correlation between regulatory systems and adoption. This analysis provides insights into whether market saturation points are shortening or lengthening, whether familiarity with traits is reducing regulatory timelines and whether the diffusion curve plateaus or trails off over time. Determining the impact regulations have on GM crop adoption provides both regulators and industry development firms with valuable information on the efficiency of GM crop regulations over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Gleim, Savannah & Smyth, Stuart J. & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2016. "Regulatory System Impacts on Global GM Crop Adoption Patterns," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 17(2), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ecjilt:253071
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.253071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/253071/files/gleim-smyth-phillips17-2lay.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.253071?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Perdikis & William A. Kerr, 1999. "Can Consumer-based Demands for Protection be Incorporated in the WTO? - The Case of Genetically Modified Foods," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(4), pages 457-465, December.
    2. Wilhelm Klümper & Matin Qaim, 2014. "A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    3. Tugrul U. Daim & Ramin Neshati & Russell Watt & James Eastham (ed.), 2014. "Technology Development," Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-319-05651-7, March.
    4. William A. Kerr, 2010. "What is New in Protectionism? Consumers, Cranks, and Captives," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(1), pages 5-22, March.
    5. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni & Timo Kaphengst & Clive Evans & Sophie Herbert & Bernard Lehmann & Stephen Morse & Nataliya Stupak, 2011. "A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(5), pages 1-20, May.
    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. Phélinas, Pascale & Choumert, Johanna, 2017. "Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 452-462.
    2. Smyth, Stuart J. & Falck-Zepeda, Jose & Ludlow, Karinne, 2016. "The Costs of Regulatory Delays for Genetically Modified Crops," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 17(2), pages 1-23, December.
    3. John Herbert Ainembabazi & Leena Tripathi & Joseph Rusike & Tahirou Abdoulaye & Victor Manyong, 2015. "Ex-Ante Economic Impact Assessment of Genetically Modified Banana Resistant to Xanthomonas Wilt in the Great Lakes Region of Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Gouse, Marnus & Sengupta, Debdatta & Zambrano, Patricia & Zepeda, José Falck, 2016. "Genetically Modified Maize: Less Drudgery for Her, More Maize for Him? Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-38.
    5. David Zilberman & Tim G. Holland & Itai Trilnick, 2018. "Agricultural GMOs—What We Know and Where Scientists Disagree," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    6. Bequet, Ludovic, 2020. "Biotech Crops, Input Use and Landslides Case Study of Herbicide Tolerant Corn in the Philippine Highlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    7. Fatemeh Taheri & Hossein Azadi & Marijke D’Haese, 2017. "A World without Hunger: Organic or GM Crops?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Klara Fischer & Elisabeth Ekener-Petersen & Lotta Rydhmer & Karin Edvardsson Björnberg, 2015. "Social Impacts of GM Crops in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-23, July.
    9. Kerr, William A., 2015. "Governance of International Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms: Is Future Global Food Security at Risk?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 16(2), pages 1-18.
    10. PK Gupta, 2018. "An Assessment of Relative Risks to Human/Ecological Health Biotech Crops versus Other Human Activities," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 1(2), pages 51-62, February.
    11. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    12. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    13. Paul Vincelli, 2016. "Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-by-Case Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-22, May.
    14. Nakuja, Tekuni & Kerr, William A., 2013. "Was Food Safety Declining?: Assessing the Justification for the US Food Safety Modernisation Act," Commissioned Papers 145969, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network.
    15. Tylecote, Andrew, 2019. "Biotechnology as a new techno-economic paradigm that will help drive the world economy and mitigate climate change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 858-868.
    16. Jonas Kathage & Manuel Gómez-Barbero & Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo, 2016. "Framework for assessing the socio-economic impacts of Bt maize cultivation," JRC Research Reports JRC103197, Joint Research Centre.
    17. Neubauer, Florian & Wall, Alan & Njuki, Eric & Bravo-Ureta, Boris, 2023. "Climatic Effects and Farming Performance: An Overview of Selected Studies," 2023 Inter-Conference Symposium, April 19-21, 2023, Montevideo, Uruguay 338540, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Scheitrum, Daniel & Schaefer, K. Aleks & Nes, Kjersti, 2020. "Realized and potential global production effects from genetic engineering," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    19. Vargas Meza Xanat & Ke Jiang & George A. Barnett & Han Woo Park, 2018. "International trade of GMO-related agricultural products," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 565-587, March.
    20. Deepayan Debnath & Madhu Khanna & Deepak Rajagopal & David Zilberman, 2019. "The Future of Biofuels in an Electrifying Global Transportation Sector: Imperative, Prospects and Challenges," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(4), pages 563-582, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    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:ags:ecjilt:253071. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esteyca.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.