IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae08/44418.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost and benefits for the segregation of GM and non-GM compound feed

Author

Listed:
  • Gryson, N.
  • Eeckhout, M.
  • Neijens, T.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gryson, N. & Eeckhout, M. & Neijens, T., 2008. "Cost and benefits for the segregation of GM and non-GM compound feed," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44418, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:44418
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.44418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/44418/files/010.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.44418?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Marion Desquilbet & E. Nitsi, 2000. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Post-Print hal-02283451, HAL.
    3. David S Bullock & Marion Desquilbet, 2000. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Working Papers hal-02319375, HAL.
    4. D.S. Bullock & Marion Desquilbet, 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Post-Print hal-02364321, HAL.
    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. 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 1-18, January.

    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. Konduru, Srinivasa & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Magnier, Alexandre, 2009. "GMO Testing Strategies and Implications for Trade: A Game Theoretic Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49594, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Mario F. Teisl & Julie A. Caswell, 2003. "Information Policy and Genetically Modified Food: Weighting the Benefits and Costs," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 4, March.
    3. Troy G. Schmitz & Andrew Schmitz & Charles B. Moss, 2005. "The economic impact of StarLink corn," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 391-407.
    4. Gawron, Jana-Christina & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2007. "Costs of Processing Genetically Modified Organisms: Analysis of the Rapeseed and Corn Industries," 47th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 26-28, 2007 7601, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    5. Crowe, Bronwyn & Pluske, Johanna M., 2006. "Is it Cost Effective to Segregate Canola in WA?," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 14.
    6. 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).
    7. Harvey E. Lapan & Giancarlo Moschini, 2004. "Innovation and Trade with Endogenous Market Failure: The Case of Genetically Modified Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 634-648.
    8. Gawron, J.-C. & Theuvsen, L., 2008. "Kosten der Verarbeitung gentechnisch veränderter Organismen: Eine Analyse am Beispiel der Raps- und Maisverarbeitung," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    9. Hatwell, Bronwyn & Pluske, Johanna M., 2004. "The cost of segregating GM canola: A case study," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58702, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Heyder, Matthias & Theuvsen, Ludwig & Hollmann-Hespos, Thorsten, 2012. "Investments in tracking and tracing systems in the food industry: A PLS analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 102-113.
    11. David S. Bullock, 2001. "Les effets économiques des réglementations différentes en matière d'organismes génétiquement modifiés," Post-Print hal-02290699, HAL.
    12. Schmitz, Troy G. & Schmitz, Andrew & Moss, Charles B., 2004. "Two Approaches To Measuring The Economic Impact Of Starlink Corn On U.S. Producers," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20306, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Hyde, Jeffrey & Martin, Marshall A. & Preckel, Paul V. & Buschman, Lawrent L. & Edwards, C. Richard & Sloderbeck, Phillip E. & Higgins, Randall A., 2003. "The Value of Bt Corn in Southwest Kansas: A Monte Carlo Simulation Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Nadolnyak, Denis A. & Sheldon, Ian M., 2002. "A Model of Diffusion of Genetically Modified Crop Technology in Concentrated Agricultural Processing Markets - The Case of Soybeans," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24872, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Chang, Ching-Cheng & Hsu, Shih-Hsun & Wu, Chia-Hsuan, 2004. "An Economy-Wide Analysis Of Gm Food Labeling Policies In Taiwan," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19929, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2001. "Reshaping The Conventional Welfare Economics Framework For Estimating The Economic Impact Of Agricultural Biotechnology In The European Union," Working Papers 31835, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    17. Buhr, Brian L., 2003. "Traceability, Trade And Cool: Lessons From The Eu Meat And Poultry Industry," Working Papers 14577, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eaae08:44418. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.