IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v35y2013i2p129-138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What risks and for whom? Argentina's regulatory policies and global commercial interests in GMOs

Author

Listed:
  • Pellegrini, Pablo A.

Abstract

Regulatory frameworks on genetically modified crops present several differences, according to the specific procedures they take to deal with what they consider to be risks. Some of these differences have been studied between the United States and Europe, but there are other scenarios and subjects that may also be involved. Argentina not only has one of the major land areas devoted to transgenic agriculture, but it also has one of the first regulatory agencies in the region. Nevertheless, its regulatory policies towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have several differences with some international regulatory policies, such as the precautionary approach, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the labeling of food derived from GM crops. In order to understand this position, we analyze the development and function of GMOs' regulatory framework in Argentina, comparing it with Europe and showing how commercial interests in agriculture may explain each regulatory approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Pellegrini, Pablo A., 2013. "What risks and for whom? Argentina's regulatory policies and global commercial interests in GMOs," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 129-138.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:35:y:2013:i:2:p:129-138
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.01.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X13000043
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.01.003?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dietmar Harhoff & Pierre Régibeau & Katharine Rockett, 2001. "Some simple economics of GM food," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 16(33), pages 264-299.
    2. Vogel, David, 2001. "The new politics of risk regulation in Europe," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 35984, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Daniel W. Drezner, 2007. "Bringing the Great Powers Back In, from All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes," Introductory Chapters, in: All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes, Princeton University Press.
    4. Burachik, Moisés & Traynor, Patricia L., 2002. "Analysis of a National Biosafety System: Regulatory Policies and Procedures in Argentina," ISNAR Archive 310699, CGIAR > International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Jackson, Lee Ann & Anderson, Kym, 2003. "WHY ARE US AND EU POLICIES TOWARD GMOs SO DIFFERENT?," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57898, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Phélinas, Pascale & Choumert, Johanna, 2017. "Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 452-462.

    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. Sandra Lavenex & Flavia Jurje, 2021. "Opening‐up labor mobility? Rising powers' rulemaking in trade agreements," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 598-615, July.
    2. Minogue, Martin, 2005. "Apples and Oranges: Problems in the Analysis of Comparative Regulatory Governance," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30589, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    3. Beyer, Andrea R. & Fasolo, Barbara & de Graeff, P.A. & Hillege, H.L., 2015. "Risk attitudes and personality traits predict perceptions of benefits and risks for medicinal products: a field study of European medical assessors," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 61210, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Alexander Reisenbichler, 2015. "The domestic sources and power dynamics of regulatory networks: evidence from the financial stability forum," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(5), pages 996-1024, October.
    6. Matthias Thiemann, 2014. "In the Shadow of Basel: How Competitive Politics Bred the Crisis," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 1203-1239, December.
    7. Erica Owen & Stefanie Walter, 2017. "Open economy politics and Brexit: insights, puzzles, and ways forward," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 179-202, March.
    8. Leonardo Baccini, 2010. "Explaining formation and design of EU trade agreements: The role of transparency and flexibility," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 195-217, June.
    9. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. 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.
    11. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Tony Porter, 2014. "Technical systems and the architecture of transnational business governance interactions," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 110-125, March.
    13. Daniel Mügge & Bart Stellinga, 2015. "The unstable core of global finance: Contingent valuation and governance of international accounting standards," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 47-62, March.
    14. Mark Beeson & Jolanta Hewitt, 2022. "Does Multilateralism still Matter? ASEAN and the Arctic Council in Comparative Perspective," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(2), pages 208-218, May.
    15. Johannes Matschke, 2021. "National Interests, Spillovers and Macroprudential Coordination," Research Working Paper RWP 21-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
    16. William H. Kaye-Blake & Caroline M. Saunders & Selim Cagatay, 2008. "Genetic Modification Technology and Producer Returns: The Impacts of Productivity, Preferences, and Technology Uptake," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(4), pages 692-710.
    17. Abels, Gabriele, 2002. "Experts, Citizens, and Eurocrats Towards a Policy Shift in the Governance of Biopolitics in the EU," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 6, December.
    18. Mark Beeson & Fujian Li, 2016. "China's Place in Regional and Global Governance: A New World Comes Into View," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 7(4), pages 491-499, November.
    19. 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.
    20. Benjamin Cashore & Michael W. Stone, 2014. "Does California need Delaware? Explaining Indonesian, Chinese, and United States support for legality compliance of internationally traded products," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 49-73, March.
    21. Perri 6 & Eva Heims & Martha Prevezer, 2023. "How did international economic regulation survive the last period of deglobalization?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 272-289, January.
    22. Lucia Quaglia & Aneta Spendzharova, 2017. "Post‐crisis reforms in banking: Regulators at the interface between domestic and international governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 422-437, December.

    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:eee:teinso:v:35:y:2013:i:2:p:129-138. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.