IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v31y2004i1p1-18.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Tollens

Abstract

The decision on whether to release transgenic crops in the EU is subject to irreversibility, uncertainty and flexibility. We analyse the case of herbicide-tolerant sugar beet and assess whether the EU's 1998 de facto moratorium on transgenic crops for sugar beet was correct from a cost--benefit perspective, using a real option approach. We show that the decision was correct, providing households on average value the possible annual irreversible costs of herbicide-tolerant sugar beet at €1 or more. On the other hand, the total net private reversible benefits forgone if the de facto moratorium is not lifted are around €169 million per year. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Tollens, 2004. "Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(1), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:31:y:2004:i:1:p:1-18
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giancarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan & Andrei Sobolevsky, 2000. "Roundup ready® soybeans and welfare effects in the soybean complex," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 33-55.
    2. Pindyck, Robert S., 2000. "Irreversibilities and the timing of environmental policy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 233-259, July.
    3. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    4. Bureau, Jean-Christophe, et al, 1997. "Quota Mobility in the European Sugar Regime," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 24(1), pages 1-30.
    5. Pretty, J. N. & Brett, C. & Gee, D. & Hine, R. E. & Mason, C. F. & Morison, J. I. L. & Raven, H. & Rayment, M. D. & van der Bijl, G., 2000. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 113-136, August.
    6. George C. Davis & Maria Cristina Espinoza, 1998. "A Unified Approach to Sensitivity Analysis in Equilibrium Displacement Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(4), pages 868-879.
    7. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & McBride, William D., 2002. "Adoption Of Bioengineered Crops," Agricultural Economic Reports 33957, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. George C. Davis & M. Cristina Espinoza, 2000. "A Unified Approach to Sensitivity Analysis in Equilibrium Displacement Models: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(1), pages 241-243.
    9. José Benjamin Falck-Zepeda & Greg Traxler & Robert G. Nelson, 2000. "Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of a Biotechnology Innovation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 360-369.
    10. Fisher, Anthony C., 2000. "Investment under uncertainty and option value in environmental economics," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 197-204, July.
    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. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2001. "Uncertainties Of Estimating The Welfare Effects Of Agricultural Biotechnology In The European Union," Working Papers 31828, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    2. Falck-Zepeda, José B. & Horna, Daniela & Smale, Melinda, 2007. "The economic impact and the distribution of benefits and risk from the adoption of insect resistant (Bt) cotton in West Africa," IFPRI discussion papers 718, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, "undated". "When Modern Agricultural (BIO)Technologies Meet Obsolete Trade PoliciesL The Case of the European Union's Sugar Industry," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 125079, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2001. "Welfare Effects Of Transgenic Sugarbeets In The European Union: A Theoretical Ex-Ante Framework," Working Papers 31852, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    5. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2001. "Ex-Ante Evaluation Of The Economic Impact Of Agricultural Biotechnology In The European Union: The Case Of Transgenic Sugarbeets," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20631, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2002. "Impact Of Agricultural Biotechnology In The European Union'S Sugar Industry," Working Papers 31854, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    7. Attanasi, Giuseppe Marco & Montesano, Aldo, 2010. "Testing Value vs Waiting Value in Environmental Decisions under Uncertainty," TSE Working Papers 10-154, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. 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.
    9. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    10. Harrington, David H. & Jefferson-Moore, Kenrett Y., 2006. "The Distribution of Rents in Supply Chain Industries: The Case of High Oil Corn," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25579, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Hervouet, Adrien & Langinier, Corinne, 2018. "Plant Breeders’ Rights, Patents, and Incentives to Innovate," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(01), January.
    14. Caroline Saunders & Selim Cagatay, 2003. "Commercial release of first‐generation genetically modified food products in New Zealand: using a partial equilibrium trade model to assess the impact on producer returns in New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(2), pages 233-259, June.
    15. Harvey Lapan & GianCarlo Moschini, 2007. "Grading, Minimum Quality Standards, and the Labeling of Genetically Modified Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(3), pages 769-783.
    16. Saltari, Enrico & Travaglini, Giuseppe, 2011. "Optimal abatement investment and environmental policies under pollution uncertainty," MPRA Paper 35072, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Ferrier, Peyton M. & Zhen, Chen & Bovay, John, 2023. "Price and Welfare Effects of the Food Safety Modernization Act Produce Safety Rule," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 48(01), January.
    18. Dillen, Koen & Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity to estimate the ex ante value of biotechnology innovations," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43945, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Huffman, Wallace, 2009. "Measuring Public Agricultural Research Capital and Its Contribution to State Agricultural Productivity," Staff General Research Papers Archive 13123, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Frahan, Bruno Henry de & Tritten, Christian, 2002. "Differentiated Demand and Supply of Wheat under Alternative European Trade Policies," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24831, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    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:oup:erevae:v:31:y:2004:i:1:p:1-18. 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: Oxford University Press (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.