IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jagaec/v37y2005i02p379-391_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Biotechnology Policies and International Trade in Key Markets for U.S. Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Marchant, Mary A.
  • Song, Baohui

Abstract

The United States leads the world in agricultural biotechnology research, adoption, commercialization, and exports. Our biotech commodities are highly dependent on international markets. Thus, any biotech policy changes by key importing countries may affect U.S. agricultural biotech product exports. This article identifies key markets for U.S. agricultural exports including biotech commodities and discusses current and proposed biotech policies in key markets for U.S. agricultural exports focusing on Canada, Mexico, Japan, the European Union (EU), and China. Among these markets, labeling of biotech products is voluntary in Canada and Mexico but is mandatory in Japan, the EU, and, most recently, in China. For the EU, U.S. corn exports were almost completely shut out, while U.S. soybean exports also declined because of the EU's biotech policies. The World Trade Organization dispute filed by the United States has yet to be finalized. China's biotech regulations raised concern by U.S. agricultural exporters. However, through U.S. Department of Agriculture education programs, U.S.–China negotiations, and China's domestic soybean shortage, China's biotech regulations do not appear to have had long-run impacts on U.S. soybean exports to China.

Suggested Citation

  • Marchant, Mary A. & Song, Baohui, 2005. "Assessment of Biotechnology Policies and International Trade in Key Markets for U.S. Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 379-391, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:37:y:2005:i:02:p:379-391_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1074070800006854/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jackson, Lee Ann & Anderson, Kym, 2003. "WHY ARE US AND EU POLICIES TOWARD GMOs SO DIFFERENT?," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57898, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    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. Fletcher, Stanley M. & Nadolnyak, Denis A., 2005. "Biotechnology and International Competitiveness: Implications for Southern U.S. Agriculture: Discussion," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-6, August.
    2. Jolly, Curtis M. & Jefferson-Moore, Kenrett Y. & Traxler, Greg, 2005. "Consequences of Biotechnology Policy for Competitiveness and Trade of Southern U.S. Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Chen, Wei & Marchant, Mary A. & Song, Baohui, 2009. "Impacts of China's Food Consumption on U.S. Soybean Exports," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46820, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. Song, Baohui & Marchant, Mary A., 2006. "China's Biotech Policies and Their Impacts on U.S. Agricultural Exports to China," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25661, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. Pellegrini, Pablo A., 2013. "What risks and for whom? Argentina's regulatory policies and global commercial interests in GMOs," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 129-138.
    2. Chantal Pohl Nielsen & Kym Anderson, 2003. "Golden Rice and the Looming GMO Trade Debate: Implication for the Poor," Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers 2003-22, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
    3. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2005. "Genetically Modified Rice Adoption: Implications for Welfare and Poverty Alleviation," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 20, pages 771-788.
    4. William H. Kaye-Blake & Caroline M. Saunders & Selim Cagatay, 2008. "Genetic Modification Technology and Producer Returns: The Impacts of Productivity, Preferences, and Technology Uptake," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(4), pages 692-710.
    5. Bullock, David S. & D'Arcangelo, Filippo Maria & Desquilbet, Marion, 2018. "A discussion of the market and policy failures associated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops," TSE Working Papers 18-959, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2019.
    6. Carlo Russo & Mariarosaria Simeone & Maria Angela Perito, 2020. "Educated Millennials and Credence Attributes of Food Products with Genetically Modified Organisms: Knowledge, Trust and Social Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-20, October.
    7. Alexa Spence & Ellen Townsend, 2006. "Examining Consumer Behavior Toward Genetically Modified (GM) Food in Britain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 657-670, June.
    8. Amrita Chatterjee & Sanjib Pohit & Arpita Ghose, 2016. "Trade and Distributional Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops in India: A CGE Analysis," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 10(3), pages 381-407, August.
    9. Gruere, Guillaume P. & Carter, Colin A. & Farzin, Y. Hossein, 2004. "Explaining International Differences In Genetically Modified Food Labeling Regulations," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20341, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Frisvold, George & Reeves, Jeanne, 2015. "Genetically Modified Crops: International Trade And Trade Policy Effects," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 3(2), pages 1-13, April.
    11. Yang, Anton C., 2015. "Why public acceptance matters in GMO food markets?," Conference papers 332565, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    12. Guillaume P. Gruère & Colin A. Carter & Y. Hossein Farzin, 2009. "Explaining International Differences in Genetically Modified Food Labeling Policies," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 393-408, August.
    13. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "Implications of genetically modified food technology policies for Sub-Saharan Africa," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3411, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:cup:jagaec:v:37:y:2005:i:02:p:379-391_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aae .

    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.