IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/revage/v27y2005i2p212-228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Costs and Risks of Testing and Segregating Genetically Modified Wheat

Author

Listed:
  • William W. Wilson
  • Bruce L. Dahl

Abstract

Development of genetically modified (GM) crops is challenging the functions of the grain marketing system. A stochastic optimization model was developed in this study to determine optimal testing strategies. The model chooses the optimal testing strategy that maximizes utility (minimizes disutility) of additional system costs due to testing and rejection, and allows the estimation of the risk premium required for sellers to undertake the dual marketing of GM and non-GM segregations over a non-GM system. Costs are estimated for a vertically integrated grain export chain including testing, rejection, and a risk premium. The model includes elements of costs and risks of adventitious commingling at all stages of the marketing chain, variety declaration, grower truth-telling, and accuracy of testing technologies. Sensitivities were evaluated for the effects of GM adoption, risk parameters, variety declaration, and tolerance levels. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • William W. Wilson & Bruce L. Dahl, 2005. "Costs and Risks of Testing and Segregating Genetically Modified Wheat," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 212-228.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:revage:v:27:y:2005:i:2:p:212-228
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2005.00222.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    2. William, Wilson & Dahl, Bruce & Hertsgaard, David, 2020. "Soybean quality differentials, blending, testing and spatial arbitrage," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Huffman, Wallace E., 2010. "Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods: Traits, Labels and Diverse Information," Working Papers 93168, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. 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).
    6. Darren Barber & Jill Hobbs & James Nolan, 2008. "Assessing Producer Stated Preferences for Identity Preservation in the Canadian Grain Handling and Transportation System," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(3), pages 243-256, September.
    7. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2005. "GM crop technology and trade restraints: economic implications for Australia and New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 1-19.
    8. Shakya, Sumadhur & Wilson, William W. & Dahl, Bruce L., 2012. "Valuing New Random GM Traits: The Case of Drought Tolerant Wheat," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 128033, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    9. Matthias Heyder & Ludwig Theuvsen, 2009. "Der Einsatz von GVO: Empirische Ergebnisse zum Legitimierungsdruck und zur Corporate Social Responsibility im Agribusiness," 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 143-176.
    10. Heyder, Matthias & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2010. "Corporate Social Responsibility in the agri-food sector: the case of GMOs," Problems of World Agriculture / Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, vol. 10(25), pages 1-18, September.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    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:revage:v:27:y:2005:i:2:p:212-228. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.