IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cha/ysa001/v2y2009i1p113-142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Apples compared to Apples: Attitudes towards cisgenic and transgenic breeds

Author

Listed:
  • E.-A. Nuppenau

    (University of Giessen, Dept. of Agri. Policy and Market Research, Giessen)

  • T.S Amjath Babu

    (University of Giessen, Dept. of Agri. Policy and Market Research, Giessen)

Abstract

The discussion on the use of Genetically Modified (GM) crops has become a tedious issue. It seems that an amicable settlement of the conflicts between those who object the use of GM crops and want a general ban (more or less) on modification of plant and animal genetic resources on the one side, and those who want to have a generic permit for the application of genetic modifications (to authorize their experiments with nature) on the other side, remains to be a mirage. The conflict is also about the aims of agrobiotechnology as well as the distribution of its costs and benefits. This article seeks to advance towards a solution by suggesting that a property rights assignment may help to realize an agreement that is less risky than the current status quo. We outline a bargaining model referring to government regulations on property rights, which shall encourage mutually respected private agreements for industry and farming. It can be an explicit right to pursue commercial biotechnology or an explicit right to be protected from the exposure to commercial GM crops Specifically we aim at designating interests in a rights exchange to settle the conflict. It is the objective of this contribution (1) to analyze the exchange of rights in a political economy viewpoint instead of proposing a market solution (Harsanyi/Zusman). (2) It attempts to outline the stakeholders’ interests and to specify externalities of uncertain effects of GM crops. (3) The article refers to a compromise which could be built on reciprocity where risk is the common denominator. The compromise requires an understanding beyond the exchange of technical details and involves a political bargaining process to find “better” solutions as well as commitments. Solutions are defined as reduced risks from GM crops given current status of a most likely inevitable spread of GM crops.

Suggested Citation

  • E.-A. Nuppenau & T.S Amjath Babu, 2009. "Apples compared to Apples: Attitudes towards cisgenic and transgenic breeds," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 2(1), pages 113-142.
    • Handle: RePEc:cha:ysa001:v:2:y:2009:i:1:p:113-142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://archive.jsagr.org/v2/05_Nuppenau.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Pemsl, Diemuth E. & Gutierrez, Andrew P. & Waibel, Hermann, 2008. "The economics of biotechnology under ecosystem disruption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 177-183, May.
    3. Sandra S. Batie, 2003. "The Environmental Impacts of Genetically Modified Plants: Challenges to Decision Making," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1107-1111.
    4. Volker Beckmann & Justus Wesseler, 2007. "Spatial Dimension of Externalities and the Coase Theorem: Implications for Co-existence of Transgenic Crops," Springer Books, in: Wim Heijman (ed.), Regional Externalities, chapter 11, pages 223-242, Springer.
    5. Johnson, D. Demcey & Lin, William & Vocke, Gary, 2005. "Economic and welfare impacts of commercializing a herbicide-tolerant, biotech wheat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 162-184, April.
    6. Munro, Alistair, 2008. "The spatial impact of genetically modified crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 658-666, November.
    7. Zusman, Pinhas, 1976. "The Incorporation and Measurement of Social Power in Economic Models," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 17(2), pages 447-462, June.
    8. Richard E. Just & Julian M. Alston & David Zilberman (ed.), 2006. "Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy," Natural Resource Management and Policy, Springer, number 978-0-387-36953-2, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gray, Emily & Ancev, Tihomir & Drynan, Ross, 2011. "Coexistence of GM and non-GM crops with endogenously determined separation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2486-2493.
    2. Rolf A. Groeneveld & Erik Ansink & Clemens C.M. Van de Wiel & Justus Wesseler, 2011. "Benefits and Costs of Biologically Contained Genetically Modified Tomatoes and Eggplants in Italy and Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Demont, Matty & Dillen, Koen & Daems, Wim & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 508-518, December.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Mattia C. Mancini & Kent Kovacs & Eric Wailes & Jennie Popp, 2016. "Addressing the Externalities from Genetically Modified Pollen Drift on a Heterogeneous Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-18, October.
    10. Ambec, Stefan & Langinier, Corinne & Marcoul, Phillipe, 2011. "Spatial Efficiency of Genetically Modified and Organic Crops," Working Papers 2011-11, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Skevas, Theodoros & Wesseler, Justus & Fevereiro, Pedro, 2009. "Coping with ex-ante regulations for planting Bt maize: the Portuguese experience," MPRA Paper 25609, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Clem Tisdell, 2013. "Economics, ecology and GMOs: sustainability, precaution and related issues," Chapters, in: M. A. Quaddus & M. A.B. Siddique (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development Planning, chapter 5, pages 91-118, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Tillie, Pascal & Dillen, Koen & Rodríguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2014. "Modelling ex-ante the economic and environmental impacts of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant maize cultivation in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 150-160.
    17. Frisvold, George, 2010. "Resistance Management and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biotechnology," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188091, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    18. 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.
    19. Mulvaney, Dustin & Krupnik, Timothy J., 2014. "Zero-tolerance for genetic pollution: Rice farming, pharm rice, and the risks of coexistence in California," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 125-131.
    20. David Zilberman & Eunice Kim & Sam Kirschner & Scott Kaplan & Jeanne Reeves, 2013. "Technology and the future bioeconomy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(s1), pages 95-102, November.

    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:cha:ysa001:v:2:y:2009:i:1:p:113-142. 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: Simon Briner (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://jsagr.org .

    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.