IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gmcc15/211470.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Oregon Task Force on Genetically Engineered Seeds and Agricultural Products: Summary of Task Force Report and Observations for Coexistence Efforts

Author

Listed:
  • Allen, Jennifer H.

Abstract

Dialogue related to GE issues is often polarizing due to the broad range of often-conflicting perspectives and the level of passion that many bring to this topic. Recognizing this challenge, in 2014 the Governor of the State of Oregon created a task force to bring representatives of diverse interests together to help frame the issues so that decision-makers would have an opportunity to consider the issues in a way that reflected the full range of perspectives. The purpose of the task force was not to develop consensus recommendations, but rather to help ensure that the full range of issues of concern to stakeholders was identified and understood. In examining the challenges of coexistence, the task force surfaced governance approaches, risk, liability and compensation, and communication as important considerations. While the decision not to seek consensus recommendations may have limited the report’s impact in subsequent legislative discussions, the effort to characterize issues of concern may have laid useful groundwork for the future. This paper presents the highlights of the task force’s discussions regarding coexistence issues and explores the implications for this type of process in terms of advancing exploration of coexistence strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Allen, Jennifer H., 2015. "Oregon Task Force on Genetically Engineered Seeds and Agricultural Products: Summary of Task Force Report and Observations for Coexistence Efforts," GMCC-15: Seventh GMCC, November 17-20, 2015, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 211470, International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM based Agricultural Supply Chains (GMCC).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gmcc15:211470
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.211470
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/211470/files/Allen%20-%20Oregon%20Task%20Force%20on%20Genetically%20Engineered%20Seeds%20and%20Agricultural%20Products%20GMCC-15.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.211470?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. Sandra S. Batie, 2008. "Wicked Problems and Applied Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1176-1191.
    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. Marshall, Graham R., 2013. "Transaction Costs, Collective Action And Adaptation In Managing Social-Ecological Systems," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152166, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Dentoni, Domenico & Blok, Vincent & Lans, Thomas & Wesselink, Renate, 2012. "Developing Human Capital for Agri-Food Firms’ Multi-Stakeholder Interactions," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(A), pages 1-8, June.
    3. McCann, Laura, 2013. "Transaction costs and environmental policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 253-262.
    4. Valérie Eijrond & Liesbeth Claassen & Joke van der Giessen & Danielle Timmermans, 2019. "Intensive Livestock Farming and Residential Health: Experts’ Views," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-16, September.
    5. Zhang, Xiang & Xu, Jian-gang & Ju, Yang, 2018. "Public participation in NIMBY risk mitigation: A discourse zoning approach in the Chinese context," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 559-575.
    6. Paul A. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2020. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Working Papers 20-03, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    7. Ju Young Lee & Sandra Waddock, 2021. "How Transformation Catalysts Take Catalytic Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Nicos A. Scordis & Yoshihiko Suzawa & Astrid Zwick & Lucia Ruckner, 2014. "Principles for Sustainable Insurance: Risk Management and Value," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 17(2), pages 265-276, September.
    9. Mooney, Sian & Young, Douglas & Cobourn, Kelly & Islam, Samia, 2013. "Multidisciplinary Research: Implications for Agricultural and Applied Economists," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), pages 1-16, May.
    10. Bellanger, Manuel & Fonner, Robert & Holland, Daniel S. & Libecap, Gary D. & Lipton, Douglas W. & Scemama, Pierre & Speir, Cameron & Thébaud, Olivier, 2021. "Cross-sectoral externalities related to natural resources and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    11. Steven Gray & Eleanor J. Sterling & Payam Aminpour & Lissy Goralnik & Alison Singer & Cynthia Wei & Sharon Akabas & Rebecca C. Jordan & Philippe J. Giabbanelli & Jennifer Hodbod & Erin Betley & Patric, 2019. "Assessing (Social-Ecological) Systems Thinking by Evaluating Cognitive Maps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-11, October.
    12. Yasmim Maia Pederneiras & Johann Meckenstock & Ana Isabel Cerqueira Carvalho & Ana Paula Barbosa‐Póvoa, 2022. "The wicked problem of sustainable development in supply chains," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 46-58, January.
    13. Stefan C. Dekker & Aletta D. Kraneveld & Jerry van Dijk & Agni Kalfagianni & Andre C. Knulst & Herman Lelieveldt & Ellen H. M. Moors & Eggo Müller & Raymond H. H. Pieters & Corné M. J. Pieterse & Step, 2020. "Towards Healthy Planet Diets—A Transdisciplinary Approach to Food Sustainability Challenges," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, September.
    14. Marta G. Rivera-Ferre & Miguel Ortega-Cerdà & Johann Baumgärtner, 2013. "Rethinking Study and Management of Agricultural Systems for Policy Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(9), pages 1-18, September.
    15. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    16. Ahearn, Mary Clare & Armbruster, Walt & Young, Robert, 2016. "Big Data's Potential to Improve Food Supply Chain Environmental Sustainability and Food Safety," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(A), pages 1-18, June.
    17. Chris Laszlo & Sandra Waddock & Anil Maheshwari & Giorgia Nigri & Julia Storberg-Walker, 2021. "Quantum Worldviews: How science and spirituality are converging to transform consciousness for meaningful solutions to wicked problems," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 293-311, December.
    18. Elena G. Irwin & Andrew M. Isserman & Maureen Kilkenny & Mark D. Partridge, 2010. "A Century of Research on Rural Development and Regional Issues," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 522-553.
    19. Domenico Dentoni & Verena Bitzer & Greetje Schouten, 2018. "Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 333-356, June.
    20. Vinicius Minatogawa & Matheus Franco & Izabela Simon Rampasso & Maria Holgado & Diego Garrido & Hernan Pinto & Ruy Quadros, 2022. "Towards Systematic Sustainable Business Model Innovation: What Can We Learn from Business Model Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-35, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:gmcc15:211470. 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/iaaeeea.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.