IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i22p6421-d287187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socioeconomic Impact of Genome Editing on Agricultural Value Chains: The Case of Fungal-Resistant and Coeliac-Safe Wheat

Author

Listed:
  • Oliver Maaß

    (Julius Kühn-Institut (JKI)—Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Strategies and Technology Assessment, Stahnsdorfer Damm 81, 14532 Kleinmachnow, Germany)

  • Nicola Consmüller

    (Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, Mauerstraße 39–42, 10117 Berlin, Germany)

  • Hella Kehlenbeck

    (Julius Kühn-Institut (JKI)—Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Strategies and Technology Assessment, Stahnsdorfer Damm 81, 14532 Kleinmachnow, Germany)

Abstract

Genome editing (GE) is gaining increasing importance in plant breeding, since it provides opportunities to develop improved crops with high precision and speed. However, little is known about the socioeconomic impact of genome editing on agricultural value chains. This qualitative study analyzes how genome-edited crops could affect agriculture value chains. Based on the hypothetical case of producing and processing fungal-resistant and coeliac-safe wheat in Germany, we conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with associations and companies operating in the value chains of wheat. A value chain analysis and qualitative content analysis were combined to assess the costs and benefits of the crops studied along the value chains of wheat. The results show that the use of fungal-resistant and coeliac-safe wheat can provide benefits at each step of the value chains. Fungal-resistant wheat benefits actors by reducing the problems and costs resulting from fungal-diseases and mycotoxins. Coeliac-safe wheat benefits actors by producing high value-added products, which can be safely consumed by patients suffering from coeliac disease. However, the results also show that low acceptance of GE by society and food retailers poses a significant barrier for the use of genome-edited crops in agricultural value chains.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliver Maaß & Nicola Consmüller & Hella Kehlenbeck, 2019. "Socioeconomic Impact of Genome Editing on Agricultural Value Chains: The Case of Fungal-Resistant and Coeliac-Safe Wheat," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-26, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6421-:d:287187
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6421/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6421/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beckmann, Volker & Soregaroli, Claudio & Wesseler, Justus, 2010. "Ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability under uncertainty and irreversibility: governing the coexistence of GM crops," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 4, pages 1-33.
    2. 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.
    3. Stefan Mann, 2018. "Socioeconomics of Agriculture," SpringerBriefs in Economics, Springer, number 978-3-319-74141-3, October.
    4. D.S. Bullock & Marion Desquilbet, 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Post-Print hal-02364321, HAL.
    5. Georgina Catacora-Vargas & Rosa Binimelis & Anne I. Myhr & Brian Wynne, 2018. "Socio-economic research on genetically modified crops: a study of the literature," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(2), pages 489-513, June.
    6. Volker Beckmann & Claudio Soregaroli & Justus Wesseler, 2006. "Coexistence Rules and Regulations in the European Union," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1193-1199.
    7. Oliver Maaß & Philipp Grundmann, 2018. "Governing Transactions and Interdependences between Linked Value Chains in a Circular Economy: The Case of Wastewater Reuse in Braunschweig (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-29, April.
    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. Dimosthenis Kizis & Aikaterini-Eleni Vichou & Pantelis I. Natskoulis, 2021. "Recent Advances in Mycotoxin Analysis and Detection of Mycotoxigenic Fungi in Grapes and Derived Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-26, February.

    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. Marion Desquilbet & Sylvaine Poret, 2014. "How do GM/non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 51-82, February.
    2. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    3. Coléno, F.C. & Angevin, F. & Lécroart, B., 2009. "A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and cross-pollination risk management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(1-2), pages 49-56, June.
    4. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Are EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations proportional?," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44191, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Andreas Gabriel & Klaus Menrad, 2015. "Cost of Coexistence of GM and Non‐GM Products in the Food Supply Chains of Rapeseed Oil and Maize Starch in Germany," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(4), pages 472-490, October.
    6. Anne-Célia Disdier & Lionel Fontagné, 2010. "Trade impact of European measures on GMOs condemned by the WTO panel," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 146(3), pages 495-514, September.
    7. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Economics of spatial coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops: Oilseed rape in Central France," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43650, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Marion Desquilbet & Sylvaine Poret, 2015. "How do GM / non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," Working Papers hal-00956039, HAL.
    9. Goldsmith, Peter D. & Bender, Karen, 2003. "Ten Conversations about Identity Preservation: Implications for Cooperatives," 2003 Annual Meeting, October 29 31803, NCERA-194 Research on Cooperatives.
    10. Cadot, Olivier & Suwa-Eisenmann, Akiko & Traça, Daniel, 2003. "OGM et relations commerciales transatlantiques," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    11. Julia Jouan & Aude Ridier & Matthieu Carof, 2018. "SYNERGY: a bio economic model assessing the economic and environmental impacts of increased regional protein self-sufficiency," Post-Print hal-01937084, HAL.
    12. Ambec, Stefan & Langinier, Corinne & Marcoul, Phillipe, 2011. "Spatial Efficiency of Genetically Modified and Organic Crops," Working Papers 2011-11, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    13. Consmuller, Nicola & Beckmann, Volker & Petrick, Martin, 2012. "Identifying driving factors for the establishment of cooperative GMO-free zones in Germany," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126531, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Bonny, Sylvie, 2009. "Issues, impacts, and prospects of the first transgenic crops tolerant to a herbicide. The case of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51449, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. GianCarlo Moschini & Harvey E. Lapan, 2005. "Labeling Regulations and Segregation of First- and Second-Generation Genetically Modified Products: Innovation Incentives and Welfare Effects," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-wp391, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    16. 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.
    17. Wesseler, Justus, 2014. "Biotechnologies and agrifood strategies: opportunities, threats and economic implications," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(3), pages 1-18, December.
    18. Parcell, Joseph L., 2002. "Emerging Ip Markets: The Tokyo Grain Exchange Non-Gmo Soybean Contract," Working Papers 26038, University of Missouri Columbia, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    19. Harvey Lapan & GianCarlo Moschini, 2007. "Grading, Minimum Quality Standards, and the Labeling of Genetically Modified Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(3), pages 769-783.
    20. Ivelin Rizov & Gerhard Ruehl & Maren Langhof & Jonas Kathage & Emilio Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2018. "Best practice document for the coexistence of genetically modified potato with conventional and organic farming," JRC Research Reports JRC109645, Joint Research Centre.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6421-:d:287187. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.