Risk perceptions, endogenous demand and regulation of agricultural biotechnology

Food Policy

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 131-145

  Artuso, A ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Agriculture; Biotechnology; Endogenous demand; Regulation

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 0038218264     PISSN: 03069192     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0306-9192(03)00014-9     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ackerloff G.A. The market for 'lemons': quality uncertainty and the market mechanism Quarterly Journal of Economics 84 1970 488 500
2. Antle J. Efficient food safety regulation in the food manufacturing sector American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78 1996 1242 1247
3. Antle J. Benefits and costs of food safety regulation Food Policy 24 1999 605 623
4. Associated Press, 2001. Recompense set on altered corn. New York Times, January 24.
5. Barboza, 1999. Biotech companies take on critics of gene-altered food. The New York Times, November 12.
6. Brookes M. Running wild New Scientist 160 2158 1998 38 41
7. Buzby J.C. Frenzen P.D. Food safety and product liability Food Policy 24 1999 637 651
8. Caminal R. Vives X. Why market shares matter: an information based theory Rand Journal of Economics 27 2000 221 239
9. Caswell J. An evaluation of risk analysis as applied to agricultural biotechnology Agribusiness 16 1 2000 115 123
10. Dutton G. FDA's proposals for GM foods generally accepted Genetic Engineering News 20 11 2000 1
11. Eichenwald, K., Kolata, G., Petersen, M., 2001. Biotechnology food: from the lab to a debacle. New York Times, January 25.
12. Ellstrand N.C. Prentice H.C. Hancock J.F. Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30 1999 539 563
13. European Commission, 2000. Commission takes initiative to restore confidence in GMO approval process. Press release, European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General, July 13. Press release
14. Falck-Zepeda J.B. Traxler G. Nelson R.G. Surplus distribution from the introduction of a biotechnology innovation American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82 2 2000 360 369
15. Falck-Zepeda J.B. Traxler G. Nelson R.G. Rent creation and distribution from biotechnology innovations: the case of Bt cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybeans in 1997 Agribusiness 16 1 2000 21 32
16. FAO/WHO Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin Report of a Joint Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation Consultation 2000 FAO/WHO Rome
17. FDA, 1992. Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Register 57(104), 22984-23001.
18. FDA Report on Consumer Focus Groups on Biotechnology 2000 FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Washington, DC
19. FDA, 2001. Premarket notice concerning bioengineered foods. 21 CFR Parts 192 and 592. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. Docket No. 00N-1396, Federal Register 66(12), 4706-4738.
20. Golan E. Kuchler F. Willingness to pay for food safety: costs and benefits of accurate measures American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81 5 1999 1185 1191
21. Grout P.A. Welfare economics of decision making with changing preferences The Review of Economic Studies 49 1982 83 90
22. Hammond P.J. Changing tastes and coherent dynamic choice The Review of Economic Studies 43 1976 159 173
23. Larson B.A. Knudson M.K. Public regulation of agricultural biotechnology field tests: implications of alternative approaches American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 4 1991 1074 1082
24. Losey J.E. Rayor L.S. Carter M.E. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae Nature 399 6733 1999 214 214
25. Mann C. Biotech goes wild Technology Review 102 4 1999 36 43
26. Marschack T.A. On the study of taste changing policies The American Economic Review 68 1978 368 391
27. Maryanski, J.H., 1995. FDA'S policy for foods developed by biotechnology. In: Engel, K.H., Takeoka, G., Teranishi, R. (Eds.), Genetically Modified Foods: Safety Issues. American Chemical Society, Symposium Series No. 605, pp. 12-22.
28. Misra S.K. Fletcher S.M. Huang C.L. Irradiation and food safety: consumer attitudes and awareness Caswell J.A. Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition 1995 435 455 Westview Press Boulder, Oxford
29. Moschini G. Lapan H. Intellectual property rights and the welfare effects of agricultural R-D American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 4 1997 1229 1242
30. Moschini G. Lapan H. Sobolevsky A. Roundup ready soybeans and welfare effects in the soybean complex Agribusiness 16 1 2000 33 55
31. National Academy of Sciences (US, Brazil, China, India, Mexico) and Royal Society Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture 2000 National Academy Press Washington, DC
32. National Academy of Sciences (US) Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation 2001 National Academy Press Washington, DC
33. National Research Council (NRC) Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation 2000 National Academy Press Washington, DC
34. Nayga R.M.Jr. Sociodemographic influences on consumer concern for food safety: the case of irradiation, antibiotics, hormones and pesticides Review of Agricultural Economics 18 3 1996 467 475
35. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 2002. Environmental savior or saboteur: debating the impacts of genetic engineering. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Available from "
36. Pollack R. Habit formation and dynamic demand functions Journal of Political Economy 78 1970 745 763
37. Pollack R. Endogenous tastes in demand and welfare analysis American Economic Review 68 1978 374 379
38. Roberts T. Buzby C.J. Ollinger M. Using benefit and cost information to evaluate a food safety regulation: HACCP for meat and poultry American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78 1996 1297 1301
39. Royal Society Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use and Human Health: An Update 2002 UK Royal Society London
40. Shogren J.F. Fox J.A. Hayes D.J. Roosen J. Observed choices for food safety in retail, survey and auction markets American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81 5 1999 1192 1199
41. Stiglitz, J.E., 2000. Imperfect information in the product market. In: Schmalensee, R., Willigs, R.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization. North-Holland.
42. Stipp D. Is Monsanto's biotech worth less than a hill of beans? Fortune 141 4 2000 157 160
43. USDA, 2002a. Agricultural biotechnology: adoption of biotechnology and its production impacts. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. Available from " http://www.ers.usda.gow/briefing/biotechnology
44. USDA, 2002b. Prospective plantings. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, Washington, DC " http://usda.mannli.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bbp/psp10302.pdf
45. USDA Bt corn not a threat to Monarchs Agricultural Research Magazine 50 2 2002
46. Vettas N. Investment dynamics in markets with endogenous demand Journal of Industrial Economics 48 2000 189 203
47. Vogt D.U. Parish M. Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues 1998 Congressional Research Service Washington, DC
48. Wolfenbarger L.L. Phifer P.R. The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants Science 290 2000 2088 2093
49. Wright S. Down on the animal pharm: splicing away regulations The Nation 262 10 1996 16
50. WSJ, 2000. Novartis bans crops with changed genes from its foodstuffs. Wall Street Journal, B8, New York, August 4.