Skip to main content

On application of the precautionary principle to ban GMVs: an evolutionary model of new seed technology integration

Journal of Evolutionary Economics volume 30, pages 1243–1266 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Since the 1990s, agri-biotech multinationals have introduced a radical innovation in the form of seeds derived from genetically modified plant varieties or GMVs. However, on the basis of the ‘precautionary principle’ that advocates ensuring a higher environmental protection through preventative decision-taking, many countries have banned the cultivation of GMVs within their territories. Thus, the objective of the present paper is to attempt to explore the rationale for application of the precautionary principle. This is done through development of an evolutionary model of farmers’ technology choice incorporating intrinsic features of agriculture such as the technological obsolescence of seed varieties, impact of environmental degradation engendered by new seed technology adoption and farmers’ compliance choice vis-à-vis sustainability guidelines. Further, instead of a unique representative farmer, two types of farmers are considered. The first type is driven by short term profit maximization, while the second type aims to be sustainable, by maximizing profit over the life time of the technology. Integrating the above elements and considering two possible rules for application of the precautionary principle, the paper explores the conditions under which the precautionary principle can be implemented. It demonstrates that, even under complete and perfect information the need to exercise such caution depends principally on four factors: the economic gains from GMVs, the possibilities for sustaining the production of the conventional variety in the post-GMV period via compliance, the distribution of farmers over types and the compliance-contamination burden.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Green Revolution was a technology package involving improved quality seeds, controlled irrigation and measured doses of fertilizers. Created by the agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug, these modern variety seeds were a new dwarf variety of wheat, with “short legs” that could support a greater amount of wheat grains on any stalk. The hybrid dwarf variety clearly yielded more than the conventional varieties of wheat of that time. While the Green Revolution heralded a veritable increase in yields with respect to cereals, and saved developing countries, especially India, from famine, it led to very intensified use of water and application of agro-chemicals causing soil degradation and groundwater depletion.

  2. 2.

    Interested readers can obtain examples of precise functional forms of the profit and payoff functions that satisfy these properties from the authors.

  3. 3.

    Following the World Bank Country Classification by Income https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups

References

  1. Adenle AA, Morris EJ, Murphy DJ, Phillips PW, Trigo E, Kearns P et al (2018) Rationalizing governance of genetically modified products in developing countries. Nat Biotechnol 36(2):137

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson JR, Feder G (2004) Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities. World Bank Res Obs 19(1):41–60

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson JA, Ellsworth PC, Faria JC, Head GP, Owen MD, Pilcher CD et al (2019) Genetically engineered crops: importance of diversified integrated pest management for agricultural sustainability. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 7:24

    Google Scholar 

  4. Areal F, Riesgo L, Rodriguez-Cerezo E (2013) Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: a meta-analysis. J Agric Sci 151(1):7–33

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arrow KJ, Fisher AC (1974) Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility. Q J Econ 88:187–191

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aslam U, Termansen M, Fleskens L (2017) Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems. Ecosystem Services 27:103–112

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beharry-Borg N, Smart JC, Termansen M, Hubacek K (2013) Evaluating farmers’ likely participation in a payment programme for water quality protection in the UK uplands. Reg Environ Chang 13(3):633–647

    Google Scholar 

  8. Belcher K, Nolan J, Phillips PW (2005) Genetically modified crops and agricultural landscapes: spatial patterns of contamination. Ecol Econ 53(3):387–401

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bogner A, Torgersen H (2018) Precaution, responsible innovation and beyond—in search of a sustainable agricultural biotechnology policy. Frontiers in Plant Science 9:1884

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cai Y, Kim E (2019) Sustainable development in world trade law: application of the precautionary principle in Korea-radionuclides. Sustainability 11(7):1942

    Google Scholar 

  11. Caplan AL, Parent B, Shen M, Plunkett C (2015) No time to waste—the ethical challenges created by CRISPR. EMBO Rep 16(11):1421–1426

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carpenter JE (2010) Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops. Nat Biotechnol 28(4):319

    Google Scholar 

  13. Castro D, McLaughlin M (2019) Ten ways the precautionary principle undermines progress in artificial intelligence. Retrieved from https://itif.org/publications/2019/02/04/ten-ways-precautionary-principle-undermines-progress-artificial-intelligence

  14. Catarino R, Ceddia G, Areal FJ, Park J (2015) The impact of secondary pests on Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops. Plant Biotechnol J 13(5):601–612

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ceddia MG, Bartlett M, Perrings C (2007) Landscape gene flow, coexistence and threshold effect: the case of genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Ecol Model 205(1–2):169–180

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ceddia MG, Bartlett M, Perrings C (2009) Quantifying the effect of buffer zones, crop areas and spatial aggregation on the externalities of genetically modified crops at landscape level. Agric Ecosyst Environ 129(1–3):65–72

    Google Scholar 

  17. Christensen T, Pedersen AB, Nielsen HO, Mørkbak MR, Hasler B, Denver S (2011) Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones—a choice experiment study. Ecol Econ 70(8):1558–1564

    Google Scholar 

  18. Christiansen A (2019) Rationality, expected utility theory and the precautionary principle. Ethics Policy Environ 1–18

  19. David PA (1975) Technical choice innovation and economic growth: essays on American and British experience in the nineteenth century. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Feder G, Umali DL (1993) The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 43(3–4):215–239

    Google Scholar 

  21. Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D (1985) Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Econ Dev Cult Chang 33(2):255–298

    Google Scholar 

  22. Friesen LF, Nelson AG, Van Acker RC (2003) Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in western Canada with genetically engineered herbicide resistance traits. Agron J 95(5):1342–1347

    Google Scholar 

  23. Giampietro M (2002) The precautionary principle and ecological hazards of genetically modified organisms. Ambio 31(6):466–470

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gilbert N (2013) A hard look at GM crops. Nature. 497:24–26

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gliessman SR (1990) Agroecology: researching the ecological basis for sustainable agriculture. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gollier C, Jullien B, Treich N (2000) Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the ‘precautionary principle’. J Public Econ 75(2):229–253

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gorlin JB (2019) Iron replacement: precautionary principle versus risk-based decision making. Transfusion 59(5):1613–1615

    Google Scholar 

  28. Griliches Z (1957) Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25:501–522

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hayami Y, Ruttan VW (1971) Agricultural development: an international perspective. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  30. Henry C (1974) Investment decisions under uncertainty: the “irreversibility effect”. Am Econ Rev 64(6):1006–1012

    Google Scholar 

  31. Huang F, Andow DA, Buschman LL (2011) Success of the high-dose/refuge resistance management strategy after 15 years of Bt crop use in North America. Entomol Exp Appl 140(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  32. Immordino G (2003) Looking for a guide to protect the environment: the development of the precautionary principle. J Econ Surv 17(5):629–644

    Google Scholar 

  33. ISAAA (2018) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2018. ISAAA Brief No. 54. ISAAA. Ithaca, NY

  34. Ishii T (2018) Crop gene-editing: should we bypass or apply existing GMO policy? Trends Plant Sci 23(11):947–950

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jin L, Zhang H, Lu Y, Yang Y, Wu K, Tabashnik BE et al (2015) Large-scale test of the natural refuge strategy for delaying insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops. Nat Biotechnol 33(2):169

    Google Scholar 

  36. Klerkx L, Van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C (2012) Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  37. Levidow L (2001) Precautionary uncertainty: regulating GM crops in Europe. Soc Stud Sci 31(6):842–874

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lu Y, Wu K, Jiang Y, Xia B, Li P, Feng H et al (2010) Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China. Science 328(5982):1151–1154

    Google Scholar 

  39. Miller HE, Engemann KJ (2019) The precautionary principle and unintended consequences. Kybernetes 48(2):265–286

    Google Scholar 

  40. Murgai R, Ali M, Byerlee D (2001) Productivity growth and sustainability in post-green revolution agriculture: the case for the Indian and Pakistan Punjabs. World Bank Res Obs 16:199–218

    Google Scholar 

  41. Noailly J (2008) Coevolution of economic and ecological systems. J Evol Econ 18(1):1–29

    Google Scholar 

  42. Orset C (2014) Innovation and the precautionary principle. Econ Innov New Technol 23(8):780–801

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ortega DL, Waldman KB, Richardson RB, Clay DC, Snapp S (2016) Sustainable intensification and farmer preferences for crop system attributes: evidence from Malawi’s central and southern regions. World Dev 87:139–151

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pant LP (2019) Responsible innovation through conscious contestation at the interface of agricultural science, policy, and civil society. Agric Hum Values 1–15

  45. Peng S, Cassman KG, Virmani S, Sheehy J, Khush GS (1999) Yield potential trends of tropical rice since the release of IR8 and the challenge of increasing rice yield potential. Crop Sci 39:1552–1559

    Google Scholar 

  46. Peng S, Huang J, Cassman KG, Laza RC, Visperas RM, Khush GS (2010) The importance of maintenance breeding: a case study of the first miracle rice variety-IR8. Field Crop Res 119(2):342–347

    Google Scholar 

  47. Prakash A, Kollman KL (2003) Biopolitics in the EU and the US: a race to the bottom or convergence to the top? Int Stud Q 47(4):617–641

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ramani SV, Richard A (1993) Decision, irreversibility and flexibility: the irreversibility effect re-examined. Theor Decis 35(3):259–276

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ramani SV, Thutupalli A (2015) Emergence of controversy in technology transitions: green revolution and Bt cotton in India. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 100:198–212

    Google Scholar 

  50. Reisig DD, Kurtz R (2018) Bt resistance implications for Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) insecticide resistance management in the United States. Environ Entomol 47(6):1357–1364

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ruto E, Garrod G (2009) Investigating farmers’ preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. J Environ Plan Manag 52(5):631–647

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sandin P (1999) Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5(5):889–907

    Google Scholar 

  53. Shiva V (1989) The violence of the green revolution—ecological degradation and political conflict in Punjab. Natraj Publisher, Dehra Dun

    Google Scholar 

  54. Singla R, Johnson P, Misra S (2013) Examination of regional-level efficient refuge requirements for Bt cotton in India. AgBioForum. 15(3):303–314

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sunding D, Zilberman D (2001) The agricultural innovation process: research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector. Handb Agric Econ 1:207–261

    Google Scholar 

  56. Swanson TM (2002) Biotechnology, agriculture and the developing world: the distributional implications of technological change. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Northampton

    Google Scholar 

  57. Szirmai A (2005) The dynamics of socio-economic development: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tabashnik BE, Carrière Y (2017) Surge in insect resistance to transgenic crops and prospects for sustainability. Nat Biotechnol 35(10):926

    Google Scholar 

  59. Tabashnik BE, Gassmann AJ, Crowder DW, Carrière Y (2008) Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Nat Biotechnol 26(2):199

    Google Scholar 

  60. Tisdell C (2010) The precautionary principle revisited: its interpretations and their conservation consequences. Singap Econ Rev 55(02):335–352

    Google Scholar 

  61. Van der Werf HM, Petit J (2002) Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agric Ecosyst Environ 93(1–3):131–145

    Google Scholar 

  62. Voytas DF, Gao C (2014) Precision genome engineering and agriculture: opportunities and regulatory challenges. PLoS Biol 12(6):e1001877

    Google Scholar 

  63. Weaver SA, Morris MC (2005) Risks associated with genetic modification:–an annotated bibliography of peer reviewed natural science publications. J Agric Environ Ethics 18(2):157–189

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editor and the anonymous referees enormously for their useful comments and patience, which have greatly contributed to the improvement of this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. UNU-MERIT, Boschstraat 24, 6211 AX, Maastricht, Netherlands

    Shyama V. Ramani

  2. Rabat Business School, International University of Rabat, Technopolis, Sala-al-Jadida, 11000, Rabat, Morocco

    Mhamed-Ali El-Aroui

Authors
  1. Shyama V. Ramani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mhamed-Ali El-Aroui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shyama V. Ramani.

Ethics declarations

The present paper did not require any interaction or experimentation that demands ethical compliance.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramani, S.V., El-Aroui, MA. On application of the precautionary principle to ban GMVs: an evolutionary model of new seed technology integration. J Evol Econ 30, 1243–1266 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00694-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • GMV seed
  • Farmer heterogeneity
  • Technology obsolescence
  • Irreversibility
  • Evolutionary model
  • Precautionary principle
  • Ecology

JEL classification

  • K32
  • O30
  • Q12
  • Q15
  • Q16