IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/sarjnl/v14y2026i2p21.html

Influence of GMO Regulations on GM Crop Adoption in Developing Nations that Export

Author

Listed:
  • Louria Sunta Anak Meyu
  • Jebaraj Asirvatham
  • Prince Fosu

Abstract

This study examines the pivotal role of GMO regulations of the exporting developing countries on their farmers’ adoption of GM crops. We focus on one or two major crops, including cotton, maize and soybean, in each of the five exporting developing countries- Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Mexico. Various aspects of the import regulations of GMO products are captured by four indices. The relative impact of GMO regulations on exports is assessed to better understand farmers’ domestic production decisions in exporting developing countries. The results show that not all the elements of GM regulations or measures significantly affect the percentage of farmers adopting GM crops. However, the farmers play a significant role in this adoption. Labeling requirements stand out in that they were positively associated with the entire sample and the Latin countries' sample. The risk assessment measure had a slightly negative association with the GM adoption rate.

Suggested Citation

  • Louria Sunta Anak Meyu & Jebaraj Asirvatham & Prince Fosu, 2026. "Influence of GMO Regulations on GM Crop Adoption in Developing Nations that Export," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(2), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:sarjnl:v:14:y:2026:i:2:p:21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/sar/article/download/0/0/51951/56545
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/sar/article/view/0/51951
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harvey E. Lapan & Giancarlo Moschini, 2004. "Innovation and Trade with Endogenous Market Failure: The Case of Genetically Modified Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 634-648.
    2. 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.
    3. Imbruno, Michele, 2016. "China and WTO liberalization: Imports, tariffs and non-tariff barriers," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 222-237.
    4. Pamela J. Smith & Erik S. Katovich, 2017. "Are GMO Policies “Trade Related”? Empirical Analysis of Latin America," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 286-312.
    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. Mauro Vigani & Valentina Raimondi & Alessandro Olper, 2010. "GMO Regulations, International Trade and the Imperialism of Standards," LICOS Discussion Papers 25510, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. International Food Policy Research Institute, 2002. "Trade in genetically modified food: a survey of empirical studies," TMD discussion papers 106, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Hanjra, Munir A. & Qureshi, M. Ejaz, 2010. "Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 365-377, October.
    8. Falck-Zepeda, José B. & 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).
    9. Kaye-Blake, William & Saunders, Caroline M., 2006. "Estimated Contribution of Four Biotechnologies to New Zealand Agriculture," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21133, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Yang, Qizhong, 2024. "Heterogeneous impact of non-tariff measures on import margins through global value chains: Firm-level evidence from China," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 533-562.
    11. Imbruno, Michele, 2019. "Importing under trade policy uncertainty: Evidence from China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 806-826.
    12. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    13. Ufer, Danielle J. & Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A. & McKendree, Melissa & Swanson, Janice, 2022. "Getting past the gatekeeper: Key motivations of dairy farmer intent to adopt animal health and welfare-improving biotechnology," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    14. 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.
    15. repec:isu:genstf:200901010800001872 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Jacopo Timini & Marina Conesa, 2019. "Chinese Exports and Non-Tariff Measures: Testing for Heterogeneous Effects at the Product Level," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 34(2), pages 327-345.
    17. 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.
    18. Pender, John L., 2007. "Agricultural Technology Choices for Poor Farmers in Less-Favored Areas of South and East Asia," IFPRI Discussion Papers 42404, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Matty Demont & Marie Cerovska & Wim Daems & Koen Dillen & József Fogarasi & Erik Mathijs & František Muška & Josef Soukup & Eric Tollens, 2008. "Ex Ante Impact Assessment under Imperfect Information: Biotechnology in New Member States of the EU," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 463-486, September.
    20. Moschini, GianCarlo, 2006. "Pharmaceutical and Industrial Traits in Genetically Modified Crops: Co-existence with Conventional Agriculture," Hebrew University of Jerusalem Archive 18544, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:sarjnl:v:14:y:2026:i:2:p:21. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.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.