Who pays the costs of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation?
This paper proposes an analytical framework to examine the market and welfare impacts of GMOs, when some consumers refuse genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and when two supply channels are segregated (one for goods that containing GMOs and one for non-genetically-modified identity-preserved goods). Our analytical framework begins at the level of individual farmers, handlers and consumers, to build up market supply and demand functions. This allows us to circumvent the difficulties of conducting supply and demand analysis in the different horizontally and vertically related markets concerned by GMOs and market segregation. We represent explicitly the costs of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation (IP) for both producers of non-GM IP goods and producers of non-IP goods, and how these costs vary depending on the relative sizes of the two production channels. We then illustrate our model by a simulation of potential adoption of GM rapeseed with non-GMO market segregation in the European Union (EU). We analyze how the costs of IP are distributed among heterogenous producers, handlers and consumers in this simulation.
|Date of creation:||2002|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.eaae.org|
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- William D. McBride & Nora Books, 2000.
"Survey evidence on producer use and costs of genetically modified seed,"
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 6-20.
- McBride, William D. & Books, Nora, 2000. "Survey Evidence On Producer Use And Costs Of Genetically Modified Seed," Proceedings:Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 26009, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
- Giannakas, Konstantinos & Fulton, Murray, 2002. "Consumption effects of genetic modification: what if consumers are right?," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 97-109, August.
- Mayer, Holly & Furtan, W. H., 1999. "Economics of transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola: The case of western Canada," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 431-442, August.
- Bullock, D. S. & Desquilbet, M., 2002.
"The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation,"
Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-99, February.
- Bullock, David S. & Desquilbet, Marion & Nitsi, Elisavet I., 2000. "The Economics Of Non-Gmo Segregation And Identity Preservation," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21845, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
- Desquilbet, Marion & Lemarie, Stephane & Levert, Fabrice, 2002. "Potential Adoption of Genetically Modified Rapeseed in France, Effects on Revenues of Farmers and Upstream Companies: an ex ante evaluation," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24975, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae02:24973. 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)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.