IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who pays the costs of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation?


  • Desquilbet, Marion
  • Bullock, David S.


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.

Suggested Citation

  • Desquilbet, Marion & Bullock, David S., 2002. "Who pays the costs of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation?," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24973, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae02:24973

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. William D. McBride & Nora Books, 2000. "Survey evidence on producer use and costs of genetically modified seed," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 6-20.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2002. "Trade in genetically modified food," TMD discussion papers 106, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Arthur P. J. Mol & Peter Oosterveer, 2015. "Certification of Markets, Markets of Certificates: Tracing Sustainability in Global Agro-Food Value Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(9), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Andrei Sobolevsky & GianCarlo Moschini & Harvey E. Lapan, 2002. "Genetically Modified Crop Innovations and Product Differentiation: Trade and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 02-wp319, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    4. Baker, Andrew & Smyth, Stuart, 2010. "Managing Opportunism in Value-Added Supply Chains:," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 187979, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    5. Olivier Bonroy & Christos Constantatos, 2015. "On the Economics of Labels: How Their Introduction Affects the Functioning of Markets and the Welfare of All Participants," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 239-259.
    6. 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.
    7. Skevas, Theodoros & Fevereiro, Pedro & Wesseler, Justus, 2010. "Coexistence regulations and agriculture production: A case study of five Bt maize producers in Portugal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2402-2408, October.
    8. Thomas Venus & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Justus Wesseler, 2012. "Ist das Angebot von Nahrungsmitteln "Ohne Gentechnik" wirtschaftlich nachhaltig?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(4), pages 93-110.
    9. GianCarlo Moschini, 2014. "In Medio Stat Virtus: Coexistence Policies for GM and non-GM Production in Spatial Equilibrium," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 14-wp548, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.


    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: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). General contact details of provider: .

    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.