IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v101y2009i1-2p49-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and cross-pollination risk management

Author

Listed:
  • Coléno, F.C.
  • Angevin, F.
  • Lécroart, B.

Abstract

Under European regulations, a product is labelled as GM (genetically modified) if more than 0.9% of one of its ingredients originates from GM material. During collection, crops from many fields are combined to fill a silo. To avoid the risk of mixing GM and non-GM harvests, it is possible to dedicate a silo to a given crop or to define specific times for GM and non-GM product delivery to silos. To evaluate these scenarios for the maize supply chain, we propose a combination of a model of farmers' varietal choice (based on profit evaluation at the field level, taking into account transport costs as well as price and cost differences between GM and non-GM products) and a spatially-explicit gene flow model. Consequences of different segregation strategies for collection zone organization can therefore be compared while using the percentage of GM grain in non-GM crops due to cross-pollination. The 'temporal' strategy leads to a uniform area of GM or non-GM maize, depending on the prices and the weather risks. The 'spatial' strategy leads to areas of either GM or non-GM crops surrounding the corresponding collection silo. GM presence in non-GM batches depends on the size of the non-GM zone and on the prevailing wind. We show how divergent commercial strategies of grain merchants could have consequences on GM presence in non-GM batches.

Suggested Citation

  • Coléno, F.C. & Angevin, F. & Lécroart, B., 2009. "A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and cross-pollination risk management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(1-2), pages 49-56, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:101:y:2009:i:1-2:p:49-56
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308-521X(09)00033-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Demont, Matty & Daems, Wim & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Regulating coexistence in Europe: Beware of the domino-effect!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 683-689, February.
    2. 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.
    3. D.S. Bullock & Marion Desquilbet, 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Post-Print hal-02364321, HAL.
    4. Les Levidow & Susan Carr & David Wield, 2000. "Genetically modified crops in the European Union: regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 189-208, July.
    5. Volker Beckmann & Claudio Soregaroli & Justus Wesseler, 2006. "Coexistence Rules and Regulations in the European Union," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1193-1199.
    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. Mourad Hannachi & Francois-Christophe Coleno, 2015. "The Virtues of the Vice of Cooperation between Rival Firms: A Simulation Model to Evaluate the Performance of Coopetition Strategy in the Grain Merchant Industry," Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Management and Strategy, Sciedu Press, vol. 6(1), pages 62-75, February.
    2. Mourad Hannachi & François Coléno, 2015. "The virtues of the vice of cooperation between rival firms : a simulation model to evaluate the performance of coopetition strategy in the grain merchant industry," Post-Print hal-01123186, HAL.
    3. François Coléno & Mourad Hannachi, 2015. "A Simulation model to evaluate the effect of cooperation between grain merchants in managing GM and non-GM segregation for maize," Post-Print hal-01198228, HAL.
    4. Hossard, Laure & Gosme, Marie & Souchère, Véronique & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène, 2015. "Linking cropping system mosaics to disease resistance durability," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 307(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Gabriel Andreas & Menrad Klaus, 2014. "The Costs of GM and Non-GM Co-existence in Processed Food Systems – Demonstrated for the Cases of the German Supply Chains of Chocolate and Frozen Pizza," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 141-158, January.
    6. Coléno, F.C. & Hannachi, M., 2011. "PR - A Simulation Model To Evaluate The Effect Of Cooperation Between Grain Merchants In Managing Gm And Non-GM Segregation For Maize In Europe (p60-67)," 18th Congress, Methven, New Zealand, 2011 345557, International Farm Management Association.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    3. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Are EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations proportional?," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44191, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Oliver Maaß & Nicola Consmüller & Hella Kehlenbeck, 2019. "Socioeconomic Impact of Genome Editing on Agricultural Value Chains: The Case of Fungal-Resistant and Coeliac-Safe Wheat," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-26, November.
    5. François Coléno & Mourad Hannachi, 2015. "A Simulation model to evaluate the effect of cooperation between grain merchants in managing GM and non-GM segregation for maize," Post-Print hal-01198228, HAL.
    6. Annie Bartoli & Philippe Hermel & François Coleno & Mourad Hannachi & Ivan Samson & Aurelie Ewango-Chatelet & Delphine Philip de Saint Julien & Martial Kadji Ngassam, 2014. "Les cahiers de recherche du LAREQUOI Vol.2014/2," Post-Print hal-04646521, HAL.
    7. Anne-Célia Disdier & Lionel Fontagné, 2010. "Trade impact of European measures on GMOs condemned by the WTO panel," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 146(3), pages 495-514, September.
    8. Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Wesseler, Justus & Berentsen, Paul B.M., 2013. "Dominos in the dairy: An analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-116.
    9. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Economics of spatial coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops: Oilseed rape in Central France," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43650, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Müller-Scheeßel, Jörg, 2013. "Impact of alternative information requirements on the coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM oilseed rape in the EU," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 104-115.
    11. Goldsmith, Peter D. & Bender, Karen, 2003. "Ten Conversations about Identity Preservation: Implications for Cooperatives," 2003 Annual Meeting, October 29 31803, NCERA-194 Research on Cooperatives.
    12. Matty Demont & Yann Devos & Olivier Sanvido, 2010. "Towards Flexible Coexistence Regulations for GM crops in the EU Vers des réglementations flexibles en terme de coexistence pour les cultures transgéniques dans l’Union européenne Hin zu flexiblen Koex," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 9(2), pages 18-24, August.
    13. Cadot, Olivier & Suwa-Eisenmann, Akiko & Traça, Daniel, 2003. "OGM et relations commerciales transatlantiques," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    14. Julia Jouan & Aude Ridier & Matthieu Carof, 2018. "SYNERGY: a bio economic model assessing the economic and environmental impacts of increased regional protein self-sufficiency," Post-Print hal-01937084, HAL.
    15. GianCarlo Moschini, 2015. "In medio stat virtus: coexistence policies for GM and non-GM production in spatial equilibrium," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 42(5), pages 851-874.
    16. Consmuller, Nicola & Beckmann, Volker & Petrick, Martin, 2012. "Identifying driving factors for the establishment of cooperative GMO-free zones in Germany," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126531, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gómez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodríguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2012. "Consequences of a coexistence policy on the adoption of GMHT crops in the European Union," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 401-411.
    18. Bonny, Sylvie, 2009. "Issues, impacts, and prospects of the first transgenic crops tolerant to a herbicide. The case of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51449, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. GianCarlo Moschini & Harvey E. Lapan, 2005. "Labeling Regulations and Segregation of First- and Second-Generation Genetically Modified Products: Innovation Incentives and Welfare Effects," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-wp391, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    20. Kym Anderson & Lee Ann Jackson, 2005. "GM crop technology and trade restraints: economic implications for Australia and New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 263-281, September.

    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:eee:agisys:v:101:y:2009:i:1-2:p:49-56. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.