Economic Effects of Purity Standards in Biotech Labeling Laws
This paper develops a model of heterogeneous consumer preferences and imperfectly competitive suppliers to analyze the market and welfare effects of purity standards for non-GM food products. Analytical results show that purity standards affect the equilibrium prices and quantities of both the GM and non-GM products as well as the welfare of the groups involved. A change in purity standards is shown to create winners and losers among the consumers and the suppliers of the GM and non-GM products. Our analysis provides insights on labeling policies and the position of interest groups in countries with different adoption of, and attitudes towards genetically modified products.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 9 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jafio|
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Perloff,Jeffrey M. & Karp,Larry S. & Golan,Amos, 2007.
"Estimating Market Power and Strategies,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521011143.
- Perloff,Jeffrey M. & Karp,Larry S. & Golan,Amos, 2007. "Estimating Market Power and Strategies," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521804400.
- Charles Noussair & StÈphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2004. "Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(492), pages 102-120, 01. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)