IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v16y2000i1p115-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evaluation of risk analysis as applied to agricultural biotechnology (with a case study of gmo labeling)

Author

Listed:
  • Julie A. Caswell

    (Department of Resource Economics, 235 Draper Hall, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA USA 01003)

Abstract

Governments have several policy instruments available for influencing the speed of adoption of agricultural biotechnology and the ultimate market share of products produced with its use. Differences between countries in rates of and conditions on regulatory approval of agricultural biotechnologies result from different approaches to the factors included in risk analysis andthe inclusion of different factors. Differences in labeling policy result from these same sources, as well as from different views of the consumer's right to know about how a product was produced. An economic evaluation of the use of risk analysis to regulate agricultural biotechnology and products derived from it focuses on the welfare effects of the policy chosen relative to those of alternative policies that could have been chosen. The full application of benefit|cost analysis in different countries may indicate that different policies best suit their varying situations. [EconLit Subject Codes: K2, F1, Q1] © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie A. Caswell, 2000. "An evaluation of risk analysis as applied to agricultural biotechnology (with a case study of gmo labeling)," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 115-123.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:16:y:2000:i:1:p:115-123
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6297(200024)16:1<115::AID-AGR9>3.0.CO;2-M
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James, Sallie & Anderson, Kym, 1998. "On the need for more economic assessment of quarantine/SPS policies," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 0(Issue 4), pages 1-20.
    2. Roberts, Donna, 1998. "Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Trade Regulations," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 377-405, September.
    3. Caswell, Julie A., 1998. "How Labeling of Safety and Process Attributes Affects Markets for Food," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(02), pages 151-158, October.
    4. Julie A. Caswell & Eliza M. Mojduszka, 1996. "Using Informational Labeling to Influence the Market for Quality in Food Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1248-1253.
    5. Calvin, Linda & Krissoff, Barry, 1998. "Technical Barriers To Trade: A Case Study Of Phytosanitary Barriers And U.S. - Japanese Apple Trade," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Neal H. Hooker & Julie A. Caswell, 1999. "A Framework for Evaluating Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade Related to Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 234-246.
    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. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    2. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    3. Hine, Susan E. & Loureiro, Maria L., 2002. "Understanding Consumers' Perceptions Toward Biotechnology And Labeling," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19898, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Crespi, John M. & Marette, Stephan, 2003. "Some Economic Implications Of Public Labeling," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 1-12, November.
    5. Schmeiser, Steven, 2014. "Consumer inference and the regulation of consumer information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 192-200.
    6. Anderson, Jock R., 2003. "Risk in rural development: challenges for managers and policy makers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 161-197.
    7. Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K., 2001. "A Multi-Attribute Model Of Public Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Organisms," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20745, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Kynda R. Curtis & Klaus Moeltner, 2007. "The effect of consumer risk perceptions on the propensity to purchase genetically modified foods in Romania," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 263-278.
    9. McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L., 2003. "Consumer Preferences And Willingness To Pay For Food Labeling: A Discussion Of Empirical Studies," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 1-8, November.

    More about this item

    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:wly:agribz:v:16:y:2000:i:1:p:115-123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.