On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations: A comment

Food Policy

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 87-90

  Desquilbet, Marion ^a   Bullock, David S ^b  

^a TOULOUSE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Coexistence; Coordination; Ex ante and ex post regulation; Externality; Policy analysis

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COEXISTENCE; EUROPEAN COMMISSION; EUROPEAN UNION; POLICY ANALYSIS; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK;

EID: 74349086768     PISSN: 03069192     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.08.004     Document Type: Note

References (15)

1. Ceddia M.G., Bartlett M., and Perrings C. Quantifying the effect of buffer zones, crop areas and spatial aggregation on the externalities of genetically modified crops at landscape level. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 129 1-3 (2009) 65-72
2. Colbach N., Monod H., and Lavigne C. A simulation study of the medium-term effects of field patterns on cross-pollination rates in oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Ecological Modelling 220 5 (2009) 662-672
3. Damgaard C., and Kjellsson G. Gene flow of oilseed rape (Brassica napus) according to isolation distance and buffer zone. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 108 (2005) 291-301
4. Demont M., and Devos Y. Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives. Trends in Biotechnology 26 7 (2008) 353-358
5. Demont M., Daems W., Dillen K., Mathijs E., Sausse C., and Tollens E. Regulating coexistence in Europe: beware of the domino-effect!. Ecological Economics 64 4 (2008) 683-689
6. Demont, M., Dillen, K., Daems, W., Sausse, C., Tollens, E., Mathijs, E. (2009). On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations. Food Policy. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.04.003.
7. Devos Y., Reheul D., and De Schrijver A. The co-existence between transgenic and non-transgenic maize in the European Union: a focus on pollen flow and cross-fertilization. Environmental Biosafety Research 4 2 (2005) 71-87
8. Devos Y., Demont M., and Sanvido O. Coexistence in the EU - return of the moratorium on GM crops?. Nature Biotechnology 26 11 (2008) 1223-1225
9. EC. 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 (2003) 36-47
10. 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, Brussels, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament No. 104.
11. Gustafson D.I., Brants I.O., Horak M.J., Remund K.M., Rosenbaum E.W., and Soteres J.K. Empirical modeling of genetically modified maize grain production practices to achieve European Union labeling thresholds. Crop Science 46 (2006) 2133-2140
12. Journal Officiel de la République Française (2008). Loi No. 2008-595 du 25 juin 2008 relative aux organismes génétiquement modifiés.
13. Messéan, A., Angevin, F., Gómez-Barbero, M., Menrad, K., Rodríguez-Cerezo, E., 2006. New Case Studies on the Coexistence of GM and Non-GM Crops in European Agriculture. European Communities, Luxembourg, Technical Report No. EUR 22102 EN.
14. Munro A. The spatial impact of genetically modified crops. Ecological Economics 67 4 (2008) 658-666
15. Shavell S. Liability for harms versus regulation of safety. Journal of Legal Studies 13 (1984) 357-374