IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23874.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differing U.S. and European Perspectives on GMOs: Political, Economic and Cultural Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Runge, C. Ford
  • Bagnara, Gian Luca
  • Jackson, Lee Ann

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the historical and cultural factors that have contributed to divergent U.S. and European views on GMOs, and to resulting different national regulatory approaches for these products, specifically labelling policy. Within the context of the international trading system, these national policy choices will have impacts that will spill over national borders. Dialogue may be difficult to achieve, given widely divergent views concerning GMOs; however, without dialogue potential global social benefits of policy harmonization will be forfeited.

Suggested Citation

  • Runge, C. Ford & Bagnara, Gian Luca & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2001. "Differing U.S. and European Perspectives on GMOs: Political, Economic and Cultural Issues," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 2(2), pages 1-14.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ecjilt:23874
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.23874
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/23874/files/02020221.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.23874?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. Roberts, Donna, 1998. "Implementation Of The Wto Agreement On The Application Of Sanitary And Phytosanitary Measures: The First Two Years," Working Papers 14588, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    2. Julie A. Caswell, 2000. "An evaluation of risk analysis as applied to agricultural biotechnology (with a case study of gmo labeling)," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 115-123.
    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. Bindu Paudel & Deepthi E. Kolady & David Just & Evert Van der Sluis, 2023. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of gene‐edited foods and its implications for innovators and policymakers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 623-645, July.
    2. Paudel, Bindu & Kolady, Deepthi Elizabeth & Just, David R. & Van Der Sluis, Evert, 2021. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of genetically modified and gene-edited foods: Market and policy implications," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313905, Agricultural and Applied Economics 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. Bernard Hoekman & Kym Anderson, 2000. "Developing-Country Agriculture and the New Trade Agenda," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 171-180.
    2. Evans, Edward A. & VanSickle, John J., 2004. "The Dilemma of Safer and Freer Trade: The Case of the US Nursery Industry," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-4.
    3. Aobo Jiang & Erin & Yu-Ching Lin, 2018. "Research On The Development Of Science And Technology Network Industry Based On Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research & Developments (JMERD), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 41(3), pages 82-90, September.
    4. Peter Walkenhorst, 2004. "Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures and Agricultural Trade: A Survey of Issues and Concerns raised in the WTO's SPS Committee," International Trade 0401004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Hine, Susan E. & Loureiro, Maria L., 2002. "Understanding Consumers' Perceptions Toward Biotechnology And Labeling," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19898, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Mark R. Powell, 2013. "How to Model a Negligible Probability Under the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 972-983, June.
    7. repec:zib:zjmerd:3jmerd2018-82-90 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Henson, Spencer & Loader, Rupert, 2001. "Barriers to Agricultural Exports from Developing Countries: The Role of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Requirements," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 85-102, January.
    9. Khachatryan, Hayk & Wei, Xuan & Rihn, Alicia, 2021. "Effects of pollinator related information on consumer preference for neonicotinoid labeling," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(6), April.
    10. Oehmke, James F. & Maredia, Mywish K. & Weatherspoon, Dave D., 2001. "The Effects of Biotechnology Policy on Trade and Growth," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 2(2), pages 1-14.
    11. Crespi, John M. & Marette, Stephan, 2003. "Some Economic Implications Of Public Labeling," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-12, November.
    12. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    13. Young, Linda M., 1999. "Moving Toward A Single Market Is Hard: Trade Tensions In The Canadian-U.S. Cattle And Beef Markets," Research Discussion Papers 29235, Montana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Trade Research Center.
    14. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    15. Runge, C. Ford, 1998. "An Assessment Of U.S. Agricultural Policy And Linkages To Trade And Environmental Issues," Conference Papers 14499, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    16. Runge, C. Ford, 1998. "Emerging Issues In Agricultural Trade And The Environment," Working Papers 14383, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    17. Schmeiser, Steven, 2014. "Consumer inference and the regulation of consumer information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 192-200.
    18. Abbott, Philip, 1999. "Agricultural commodity production and trade: a trade economist's view on filling US food supply gaps," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 181-195, May.
    19. Grimsrud, Kristine M. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L. & Wahl, Thomas I., 2002. "Consumer Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Foods In Norway," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Kramb, Marc Christopher, 2001. "Die Entscheidungen des Dispute Settlement-Verfahrens der WTO im Hormonstreit zwischen der EU und den USA: Implikationen für den zukünftigen Umgang mit dem SPS-Abkommen," Discussion Papers 3, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Center for international Development and Environmental Research (ZEU).
    21. Anderson, Jock R., 2003. "Risk in rural development: challenges for managers and policy makers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 161-197.

    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:ecjilt:23874. 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/esteyca.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.