Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 26, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 353-358

  Demont, Matty ^a,b   Devos, Yann ^c  

^a Centre du riz pour l'Afrique Senegal   (Senegal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CROPS; EUROPIUM; LEAD; MIXING; PUBLIC POLICY;

ECONOMIC INCENTIVES; ELSEVIER (CO); EU POLICY; EUROPEAN UNION (EU); GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM); GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) CROPS; GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) MATERIAL; MEMBER STATES; PREVENTIVE MEASURES; TECHNICAL ASPECTS;

GRANULAR MATERIALS;

AGRICULTURAL WORKER; ARTICLE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CROSS FERTILIZATION; EUROPEAN UNION; MANAGEMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; EUROPEAN UNION; LEGISLATION, FOOD; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED;

EID: 45049088104     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2008.03.006     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abbott A., and Schiermeier Q. Showdown for Europe. Nature 450 (2007) 928-929
2. Jank B., et al. Co-existence of agricultural production systems. Trends Biotechnol. 24 (2006) 198-200
3. EC (2003) Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Official Journal of the European Communities L268, 1-23 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2003/l_268/l_26820031018en00010023.pdf)
4. EC (2003) Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. Official Journal of the European Communities L189, 36-47 (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003H0556:EN:HTML)
5. Eastham, K. and Sweet, J. (2002) Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): The Significance of Gene Flow Through Pollen Transfer, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark (http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2002_28/en/GMOs%20for%20www.pdf)
6. Demeke T., et al. Adventitious presence of GMOs: Scientific overview for Canadian grains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86 (2006) 1-23
7. Van De Wiel C.C.M., and Lotz L.A.P. Outcrossing and coexistence of genetically modified with (genetically) unmodified crops: a case study of the situation in the Netherlands. NJAS-Wagen. J. Life Sc. 54 (2006) 17-35
8. Devos Y., et al. Management of herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape in Europe: a case study on minimizing vertical gene flow. Environ. Biosafety Res. 3 (2004) 135-148
9. Devos Y., et al. The co-existence between transgenic and non-transgenic maize in the European Union: a focus on pollen flow and cross-fertilization. Environ. Biosafety Res. 4 (2005) 71-87
10. Sanvido O., et al. Definition and feasibility of isolation distances for transgenic maize cultivation. Transgenic Res. 17 (2008) 317-335
11. Marvier M., and Van Acker R.C. Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash?. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3 (2005) 99-106
12. Devos Y., et al. The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union. Environ. Biosafety Res. 5 (2006) 127-149
13. EC (2006) Report on the Implementation of National Measures on the Coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming, Commission of the European Communities (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm)
14. Beckmann V., et al. Coexistence rules and regulations in the European Union. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 88 (2006) 1193-1199
15. Damgaard C., and Kjellsson G. Gene flow of oilseed rape (Brassica napus) according to isolation distance and buffer zone. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 108 (2005) 291-301
16. Messean, A. et al. (2006) New Case Studies on the Coexistence of GM and Non-GM crops in European Agriculture, European Commission Joint Research Centre (http://ftp.jrc.es/eur22102en.pdf)
17. Hüsken A., and Dietz-Pfeilstetter A. Pollen-mediated intraspecific gene flow from herbicide resistant oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Transgenic Res. 16 (2007) 557-569
18. Hoyle M., and Cresswell J.E. The effect of wind direction on cross-polination in wind-pollinated GM crops. Ecol. Appl. 17 (2007) 1234-1243
19. Furtan W.H., et al. Landscape clubs: co-existence of genetically modified and organic crops. Can. J. Agr. Econ. 55 (2007) 185-195
20. Perry J.N. Sensitive dependencies and separation distances for genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 269 (2002) 1173-1176
21. Belcher K., et al. Genetically modified crops and agricultural landscapes: spatial patterns of contamination. Ecol. Econ. 53 (2005) 387-401
22. Devos Y., et al. Implementing isolation perimeters around genetically modified maize fields. Agron. Sust. Dev. 27 (2007) 155-165
23. Devos Y., et al. Feasibility of isolation perimeters for genetically modified maize. Agron. Sust. Dev. 28 (2008) 195-206
24. Moschini G., et al. On the segregation of genetically modified, conventional, and organic products in European agriculture: a multi-market equilibrium analysis. J. Agr. Econ. 56 (2005) 347-372
25. Kalaitzandonakes N.G., et al. Global identity preservation costs in agricultural supply chains. Can. J. Agr. Econ. 49 (2001) 605-615
26. Bullock D.S., and Desquilbet M. The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation. Food Policy 27 (2002) 81-99
27. Weekes R., et al. A study of crop-to-crop gene flow using farm scale sites of fodder maize (Zea mays L.) in the UK. Transgenic Res. 16 (2007) 203-211
28. Gustafson D.I., et al. Empirical modeling of genetically modified maize grain production practices to achieve European Union labeling thresholds. Crop Sci. 46 (2006) 2133-2140
29. Messeguer J., et al. Pollen-mediated gene flow in maize in real situations of coexistence. Plant Biotechnol. J. 4 (2006) 633-645
30. Pla M., et al. Assessment of real-time PCR based methods for quantification of pollen-mediated gene flow from GM to conventional maize in a field study. Transgenic Res. 15 (2006) 219-228
31. Weber W.E., et al. Coexistence between GM and non-GM maize crops - tested in 2004 at the field scale level (Erprobungsanbau 2004). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 193 (2007) 79-92
32. Staniland B.K., et al. Effectiveness of border areas in confining the spread of transgenic Brassica napus pollen. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80 (2000) 521-526
33. Della Porta G., et al. Maize pollen mediated gene flow in the Po valley (Italy): Source-recipient distance and effect of flowering time. Eur. J. Agron. 28 (2008) 255-265
34. Demont M., et al. Regulating coexistence in Europe: beware of the domino-effect!. Ecol. Econ. 64 (2008) 683-689
35. Beckmann V., and Wesseler J. Spatial dimension of externalities and the Coase theorem: Implications for co-existence of transgenic crops. In: Heijman W. (Ed). Regional Externalities (2007), Springer 223-242
36. Demont M., et al. GM crops in Europe: how much value and for whom?. EuroChoices 6 (2007) 46-53
37. Lapan H.E., and Moschini G. Incomplete adoption of a superior innovation. Economica 67 (2000) 525-542. http://www.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/moschini/adopt-Sept-99-StaffPaper.pdf
38. Alexander C., et al. Determinants of GMO use: a survey of Iowa corn-soybean farmers' acreage allocation. In: Santaniello V., et al. (Ed). Market Development for Genetically Modified Foods (2002), CAB International 127-139
39. Weaver R.D. R&D incentives for GM seeds: restricted monopoly, non-market effects, and regulation. In: Evenson R.E., and Santaniello V. (Eds). The Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology (2004), CAB International 143-151
40. Demont M., et al. Ex ante impact assessment under imperfect information: biotechnology in new member states of the EU. J. Agr. Econ. (2008) 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2008.00157.x
41. Oehmke J.F., and Wolf C.A. Why is Monsanto leaving money on the table? Monopoly pricing and technology valuation distributions with heterogeneous adopters. J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 36 (2004) 705-718
42. Weaver R.D., and Wesseler J. Monopolistic pricing power for transgenic crops when technology adopters face irreversible benefits and costs. Appl. Econ. Lett. 11 (2004) 969-973
43. Feder G., et al. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 33 (1985) 255-298
44. Sunding D.L., and Zilberman D. The agricultural innovation process: research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector. In: Gardner B.L., and Rausser G.C. (Eds). Handbook of Agricultural Economics Vol. 1 (2001), Elsevier 207-261
45. Foster, M. and French, S. (2007) Market Acceptance of GM Canola, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra (http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_07/GM_canola.pdf)
46. Falck-Zepeda J.B. Coexistence, genetically modified biotechnologies and biosafety: implications for developing countries. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 88 (2006) 1200-1208
47. Müller D. Geschwindigkeit als Unfallursache. Zeitschrift für die Praxis des Verkehrsjuristen 1 (2007) 1-6
48. Demont M., et al. Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one Euro question. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 31 (2004) 1-18
49. Demont M., and Tollens E. First impact of biotechnology in the EU: Bt maize adoption in Spain. Ann. Appl. Biol. 145 (2004) 197-207
50. Gruère G.P. A preliminary comparison of the retail level effects of genetically modified food labelling policies in Canada and France. Food Policy 31 (2006) 148-161
51. Ollier, C. and Utz, H. (2007) Main Crop Areas in the European Union in 2007, European Communities, Luxembourg (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-086/EN/KS-SF-07-086-EN.PDF)