IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare03/57898.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

WHY ARE US AND EU POLICIES TOWARD GMOs SO DIFFERENT?

Author

Listed:
  • Jackson, Lee Ann
  • Anderson, Kym

Abstract

The development of genetically modified (GM) agricultural products requires new policies to manage potential food safety and environmental risks. The policy positions taken to date on GM foods by the United States and the European Union are very different. The US has few restrictions on production and trade in GM food products and no costly labelling requirements, whereas the EU has close to a ban on the production and importation of GM foods. This paper seeks to explain (a) why both the US and EU policies are extreme in the light of the uncertainty about the risks associated with GM foods, (b) what their consequences are for income distribution and trade in farm products, and (c) what it means for the GM policies and economic welfare of people in other (particularly developing) countries. In this paper we use the GTAP global economy wide model to estimate the extent of the trade, national welfare and income distributional effects of the actual policy choices of the US and the EU as compared with what they would be if GM products were adopted with less-distortionary GM policies. The distributional effects are used to also shed light on why the US and EU have adopted such different sub-optimal GM policies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare03:57898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/57898
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    2. Anderson, Kym, 1995. "Lobbying Incentives and the Pattern of Protection in Rich and Poor Countries," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 401-423, January.
    3. Mishra, Ashok K. & El-Osta, Hisham S. & Morehart, Mitchell J. & Johnson, James D. & Hopkins, Jeffrey W., 2002. "Income, Wealth, And The Economic Well-Being Of Farm Households," Agricultural Economics Reports 33967, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Stone, Susan F. & Matysek, Anna & Dolling, Andrew, 2002. "Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade," Staff Research Papers 31913, Productivity Commission.
    5. Kym Anderson & Shunli Yao, 2003. "China, Gmos And World Trade In Agricultural And Textile Products," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 157-169, June.
    6. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249.
    7. Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Thierfelder, Karen & Robinson, Sherman, 2001. "Genetically modified foods, trade, and developing countries," TMD discussion papers 77, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Meijl, Hans van & Tongeren, Frank van, 2004. "International diffusion of gains from biotechnology and the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 307-316, December.
    9. Baldwin, Richard, 2000. "Regulatory Protectionism, Developing Nations and a Two-Tier World Trade System," CEPR Discussion Papers 2574, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Chantal Nielsen & Kym Anderson, 2001. "Global market effects of alternative European responses to genetically modified organisms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 137(2), pages 320-346, June.
    11. Baldwin, Robert E, 1989. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 119-135, Fall.
    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. Gruere, Guillaume P. & Carter, Colin A. & Farzin, Y. Hossein, 2004. "Explaining International Differences In Genetically Modified Food Labeling Regulations," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20341, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Marchant, Mary A. & Song, Baohui, 2005. "Assessment of Biotechnology Policies and International Trade in Key Markets for U.S. Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(02), pages 379-391, August.
    5. Frisvold, George & Reeves, Jeanne, 0. "Genetically Modified Crops: International Trade And Trade Policy Effects," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 3.
    6. 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.
    7. Guillaume P. Gruère & Colin A. Carter & Y. Hossein Farzin, 2009. "Explaining International Differences in Genetically Modified Food Labeling Policies," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 393-408, August.

    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:ags:aare03:57898. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.