Cost and benefits for the segregation of GM and non-GM compound feed
Measures are being developed and implemented enabling the co-existence of conventional, genetically modified (GM) and organic cropping systems. In order to segregate GM from conventional crops in the entire supply chain, a food or feed company has to reorganise its production. This may involve for dedication of the production line to non-GM, or production can be organised on the same plant, using spatial or temporal segregation. In practice, only the latter method is used in the feed industry, as no investments in new machinery are necessary in the case. The segregation and identity preservation of GM and non-GM crops has to be well organised. An important tools used to proof the identity of the imported raw materials is the batch or product declaration and in some cases, a supplementary certificate of analysis for the raw materials is provided. In compound feed production, specific procedures to reduce carry-over are introduced and described in a book of charge, such as rinsing of transportation and production line, empty declaration of transport systems or storage bins and specific discharge and production orders. All these measures however imply supplementary costs to the manufacturer. A major additional cost is the price difference between GM and non-GM raw materials. Other extra costs result from losses in flexibility, a devaluation of the rinsing product, analysis and audits. As a result, the cost of a compound feed using non-GM is higher than with GM. Benefits to the segregation measures are an increased gamut of products and an improved organisation and management of the production. Together with an improved traceability system, consumers’ confidence is also increased.
|Date of creation:||2008|
|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.:
- 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).
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:44418. 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 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.