Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-g8tfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T19:42:31.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulatory Differences in the Approval of GMOs: Extent and Development over Time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2015

ROSANE NUNES DE FARIA  and
CHRISTINE WIECK
ROSANE NUNES DE FARIA*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Federal University of São Carlos, Sorocaba, Brazil
CHRISTINE WIECK*
Affiliation:
University of Bonn, Germany
*
*Email: rnfaria@ufscar.br
**Email: christine.wieck@ilr.uni-bonn.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Considering the regulatory approval developments for cotton, maize, and soybean within the time period 2000–2013, this paper assesses the extent of asymmetry in the authorizations of new genetically modified organism (GMO) events between importing and exporting countries. The results show an increase in the asynchronous approval across the majority of country pairs. However, focusing only on commercialized events and considering only regulatory approval differences in which the importers are more stringent than the exporters, the asynchronous approval is considerably lower, and the result indicates that the major trade leaders have synchronized their approval status for GMOs over time. Some countries, such as Norway, Switzerland, Thailand, and Turkey seem to face the highest potential for trade disruption, while the opposite holds for Japan and South Korea.

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 85 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Faria 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Backus, G. B. C., Berkholt, P., Eaton, D. J. F., Franke, L., de Kleijn, A. J., Lotz, B., van Mil, E. M., Roza, P., and Uffelmann, W. (2008), EU Policy on GMOs: A Quick Scan on the Economic Consequences, LEI Report 2008-070, The Hague: Wageningen University and Research Centre.Google Scholar
Berwald, D., Carter, C. A., and Gruère, G. P. (2006), ‘Rejecting New Technology: The Case of Genetically Modified Wheat’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(2): 432–447.Google Scholar
Burnquist, H. L., Souza, M. J. P., Faria, R. N., Rau, M. L., and Shutes, K. (2012), ‘A Systematic Approach to Regulatory Heterogeneity Applied to EU Agri-Food Trade’, International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial Conference, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, 18–24 August 2012.Google Scholar
BIO (2013), Biotradestatus Website Database for the Regulatory and Market Status of Certain Agricultural Biotechnology Products, http://www.biotradestatus.com/default.cfm (accessed November 2013).Google Scholar
Carter, C. and Smith, A. (2007), ‘Estimating the Market Effect of a Food Scare: The Case of Genetically Modified Starlink Corn’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3): 552–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Environmental Risk Assessment (CERA) (2012), ‘GM Crop Database’, ILSI Research Foundation, Washington, DC, http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database.Google Scholar
CODEX (2003), Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants, Annex 3: Food Safety Assessment in Situations of Low-Level Presence of Recombinant-DNA Plant Material in Food, http://www.codexalimentarius.org/standards/list-of-standards/.Google Scholar
GMO-COMPASS (2013), ‘Glossary’, http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/glossary (accessed November 2013).Google Scholar
Davison, J. (2010), ‘GM Plants: Science, Politics and EC Regulations’, Plant Science, 178: 94–98.Google Scholar
Demeke, T. and Perry, D. J. (2013), ‘Low Level Presence of Unapproved Biotech Materials: Current Status and Capability of DNA-Based Detection Methods’, Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 93: 1–11.Google Scholar
Drogué, S. and DeMaria, F. (2012), Pesticides Residues and Trade: The Apple of Discord? Food Policy, 37(6): 641–649.Google Scholar
FAO (2014), Low Levels of GM Crops in International Food and Feed Trade: FAO International Survey and Economics Analysis, Technical Consultation on Low Levels of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in International Food and Feed’, Technical Background Paper 2, Rome, Italy, 20–21 March 2014.Google Scholar
FAS (2013a), Vietnam Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. GAIN Report Number: VM3062, http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Hanoi_Vietnam_11-13-2013.pdf. (accessed November 2013).Google Scholar
FAS (2013b), Malaysia Agricultural Biotechnology Annual, GAIN Report No. MY3008, http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Kuala%20Lumpur_Malaysia_7-24-2013.pdf (accessed October 2013).Google Scholar
FAS (2013c), Senegal Agricultural Biotechnology Annual, http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Dakar_Senegal_7-29-2013.pdf (accessed October 2013).Google Scholar
FAS (2013d), Thailand Agricultural Biotechnology Annual, GAIN Report No. TH3062, http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Bangkok_Thailand_8-16-2013.pdf (accessed October 2013).Google Scholar
Gruère, G. P. (2006), An Analysis of Trade Related International Regulations of Genetically Modified Food and their Effects on Developing Countries. EPT Discussion Paper 147, Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Gruère, G. P. (2011), Asynchronous Approvals of GM Products and the Codex Annex: What Low Level Presence Policy for Vietnam? Discussion Paper October 2011, Washington, DC: International Food Research Institute.Google Scholar
Gruère, G. P. and Rao, S. R. (2007), ‘A Review of International Labeling Policies of Genetically Modified Food to Evaluate India's Proposed Rule’, AgBioForum, 10(1): 51–64.Google Scholar
Henseler, M., Piot-Lepetit, I., Rerrari, E., Gonzalez Mellado, A., Banse, M., Grethe, H., Parisi, C., and Hélaine, S. (2013), ‘On the Asynchronous Approvals of GM Crops: Potential Market Impacts of a Trade Disruption of EU Soy Imports’, Food Policy, 41: 166–176.Google Scholar
ISAAA's GM Approval Database (2013), http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/.Google Scholar
Kalaitzandonakes, N. (2011), ‘The Economic Impacts of Asynchronous Authorizations and Low Level Presence: An Overview’, Position Paper, October 2011, Washington, DC: International Food Research Institute.Google Scholar
Kalaitzandonakes, N., Kaufman, J., and Miller, D. (2014), ‘Potential Economic Impacts of Zero Thresholds for Unapproved GMOs: The EU Case’, Food Policy, 45: 146–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kox, H. and Lejour, A. (2005), ‘Regulatory Heterogeneity as Obstacle for International Services: Trade Discussion Paper 49’, The Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.Google Scholar
Li, Y. and Beghin, J. C. (2014), ‘Protectionism Indices for Non-Tariff Measures: An Application to Maximum Residue Levels’, Food Policy, 45: 57–68.Google Scholar
Li, Y., Wailes, E., McKenzie, A. M., and Thomsen, M. R. (2010), ‘LL601 Contamination and Its Impact on US Rice Prices’, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 42(1): 31–38.Google Scholar
McDougall, P. (2011), The Cost and Time Involved in the Discovery, Development and Authorization of a New Plant Biotechnology Derived Trait: A Consultancy Study for CropLife International, Midlothian, United Kingdom: CropLife International.Google Scholar
Pérez-Domínguez, I. and Jongeneel, R. (2010), ‘Impacts of Feed Supply Disruption in EU Livestock Sector and Related Industries’, in P. Nowicki et al., Study on the Implications of Asynchronous GMO Approvals for EU Imports of Animal Feed Products, Final Report for Contract No. 30-CE-0317175/00-74, Brussels: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission, Chapter 6.Google Scholar
Philippidis, G. (2010), ‘EU Import Restrictions on Genetically Modified Feeds: Impacts on Spanish, EU and Global Livestock Sectors’, Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(1): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rau, M. L., Shutes, K., and Schlueter, S. (2010), ‘Index of Heterogeneity of Requirements in International Agri-Food Trade’, Working Paper 10/01, EU project ‘NTM Impact’.Google Scholar
Ryan, C. D. and Smyth, S. J. (2012), ‘Economic Implications of Low-level Presence in a Zero-Tolerance European Import Market: The Case of Canadian Triffid Flax’, AgBioForum, 15(1): 21–30.Google Scholar
Stein, A. J. and Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. (2010) ‘International Trade and the Global Pipeline of New GM Crops’, Nature Biotechnology, 28: 23–5.Google Scholar
USDA/FAS (2013), ‘Foreign Agriculture Service, Global Agricultural Information Network’, http://www.fas.usda.gov/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed November 2013).Google Scholar
Vigani, M., Raimondi, V., and Olper, A. (2012), ‘International Trade and Endogenous Standards the Case of GMO Regulations’, World Trade Review, 11(3): 415–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigani, M. and Olper, A. (2013), ‘GMO Standards, Endogenous Policy and the Market for Information’, Food Policy, 43: 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viju, C., Yeung, M. T., and Kerr, W. A. (2011), ‘Post-Moratorium EU Regulation of Genetically Modified Products: Trade Concerns’, CATPRN Commissioned Paper 2011–02, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy and Competitiveness Research Network.Google Scholar
Wieck, C. and Dashja, E. (2014), ‘Differences in Agri-Food Product Labelling Across Selected Countries’, selected paper presented at the IAMO Forum 2014/IATRC Summer Symposium, 25–27 June, Halle (Germany).Google Scholar
Winchester, N., Rau, M. L., Goetz, C., Larue, B., Otsuki, T., Shutes, K., Wieck, C., Burnquist, H. L., Pinto de Souza, M. J., and de Faria, R. N. (2012), ‘The Impact of Regulatory Heterogeneity on Agri-Food Trade’, The World Economy, 35(8): 973–993.Google Scholar
Wohlers, A. E. (2010), ‘Regulating Genetically Modified Food’, Politics and the Life Sciences, 29(2): 17–39.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

De Faria and Wieck supplementary material

Tables A1-A5

Download De Faria and Wieck supplementary material(File)
File 64 KB