IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-04-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Transgenic Trees: Implementation and Outcomes of the Plant Protection Act

Author

Listed:
  • Sedjo, Roger

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

The responsibility for protecting U.S. agriculture from pests and diseases is assigned by the Federal Plant Pest Act (FPPA) to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the Department of Agriculture. The Plant Protection Act (Title 7 U.S.C. Sections 7701 et seq.) gives Aphis statutory authority over genetically modified organisms (GMO), in effect assigning to APHIS a related responsibility of determining whether a genetically altered plant, crop, or tree is likely to pose unacceptable risks to the environment. Although APHIS has considerable experience with crop plants, it has only limited experience with trees. Yet the possible benefits of applying genetic engineering to trees are substantial and include industrial wood production and environmental uses, such as toxic remediation and species restoration. This report focuses on the Plant Protection Act (PPA) and related regulations as they have been applied to timber transgenic trees.

Suggested Citation

  • Sedjo, Roger, 2004. "Transgenic Trees: Implementation and Outcomes of the Plant Protection Act," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-10, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-04-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-04-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sedjo, Roger & Swallow, Stephen, 1999. "Eco-Labeling and the Price Premium," RFF Working Paper Series dp-00-04, Resources for the Future.
    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. Jepson, Paul R & Arakelyan, Irina, 2017. "Developing publicly acceptable tree health policy: public perceptions of tree-breeding solutions to ash dieback among interested publics in the UK," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 167-177.

    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. Moeltner, Klaus & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2003. "Voluntary Environmental Action and Export Destinations: The Case of Forest Certification," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-14.
    2. Monteiro, Jose-Antonio, 2010. "Eco-label Adoption in an Interdependent World," MPRA Paper 20268, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Fischer, Carolyn & Sedjo, Roger & Jawahar, Puja & Aguilar , Francisco, 2005. "Forest Certification: Toward Common Standards?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-10, Resources for the Future.
    4. Kitti, Mitri & Heikkilä, Jaakko & Huhtala, Anni, 2009. "‘Fair’ policies for the coffee trade – protecting people or biodiversity?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(6), pages 739-758, December.
    5. Anthony Heyes, 2009. "Is environmental regulation bad for competition? A survey," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-28, August.
    6. Jackson, Lee Ann, 2003. "Who Benefits from Quality Labelling? Segregation Costs, International Trade and Producer Outcomes," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57897, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Jones, Ann & Lansdell, Nicola, 2001. "Environmental Labelling," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 125682, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Aditi Sengupta, 2010. "Signaling environmental quality to green consumers and the incentive to invest in cleaner technology: Effect of environmental regulation," Departmental Working Papers 1001, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    9. Hoehn, John P. & Deaton, Brady J., Jr., 2003. "Information As A Double-Edged Sword: The Economic And Welfare Consequences Of Certified Labeling For Credence Attributes," Staff Paper Series 11762, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    10. Athearn, Kevin R., 2003. "Can Eco-Labeling Do More Harm Than Good? A Comparative Statics Analysis," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35105, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Hicks, Robert L. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2006. "A Spatial Model of Dolphin Avoidance in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21290, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Wanki Moon & Wojciech J. Florkowski & Bernhard Brückner & Ilona Schonhof, 2002. "Willingness to Pay for Environmental Practices: Implications for Eco-Labeling," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 88-102.
    13. Roheim, Cathy A. & Johnston, Robert J., 2005. "A Battle of Taste and Environmental Convictions for Ecolabeled Seafood: A Choice Experiment," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19357, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Napitupulu, Togar Alam & Natawidjaja, Ronnie S., 2009. "Adding value to fresh and processed produce through product certification," Working Papers 121040, United Nations Centre for Alleviation of Poverty Through Secondary Crops' Development in Asia and the Pacific (CAPSA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Forestry; biotechnology; transgenic; tree plantations; timber supply; genes; GMOs; industrial wood; economics; regulations; costs; benefits; conservation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q21 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • L73 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Primary Products and Construction - - - Forest Products

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-04-10. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.