Abstract
Trade disruptions have been both common and costly for the few GM crops that are produced and marketed. We use a range of adoption studies (compiled by Smyth et al. in Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, 2014a), regulatory data and production and trade data to quantify the scale for low level presence incidents. To gain a full perspective on the potential scale of this problem in coming years, we use a combination of recent GM trait commercialization studies and corporate pipeline analysis to identify which traits are planned for which products and the countries in which the technology is likely to be commercialized. Their potential impact will be a result of the intended markets, the regulatory process (especially asynchronous decisions) and the scale and scope of trade in those products. Finally, the article examines the potential for some existing trade and industry institutions to manage the inherent risks of uncertain markets and market impacts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Some shipments are for research purposes and contain commodities that are unsafe for any use and would be potentially toxic to humans if they entered the supply chain and that these shipments are covered by the Transport of Dangerous Goods. GM crops cannot be treated as dangerous goods due to the numerous regulatory systems approving their commercialization.
References
Buckingham D, Phillips PWB (2001) Hot potato, hot potato: regulating products of biotechnology by the international community. J World Trade 35(1):1–31
Coase R (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44
COCERAL (2010) Low level presence of GMOs not authorized in Europe: the linseed CDC triffid case. Coceral Secretariat, Brussels
CropLife International (2009) The compact: an international system for addressing damage to biological diversity. http://www.croplife.org/public/the_compact. Accessed 4 June 2015
European Commission (2015) Reviewing the decision-making process on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:3cc2bfe5-e9d1-11e4-892c-01aa75ed71a1.0002.03/DOC_1&format=PDF. Accessed 4 June 2015
European Union Food and Feed Chain Coalition (2015) Position paper for a functioning evidence-based EU policy on GMOs. http://www.europabio.org/sites/default/files/eu_food_feed_chain_overarching_position_paper_final_may_2015.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2015
Graff GD, Zilberman D, Bennett AB (2009) The contraction of agbiotech product quality innovation. Nat Biotechnol 27(8):702–704
Hobbs J, Kerr WA, Smyth SJ (2013) How low can you go: the consequences of zero tolerance. AgBioForum 16(3):207–221
Hutchinson WD et al (2010) Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science 330(6001):222–225
Index Mundi (2013) Commodity production and exports. http://www.indexmundi.com/. Accessed 3 May 2015
International Seed Federation (1999) ISF urges countries to adopt practical seed GMO thresholds. http://www.worldseed.org/cms/medias/file/PositionPapers/OnTrade/ISF_Urges_Countries_to_Adopt_Practical_Seed_GMO_Thresholds_19990601_(En).pdf. Accessed 4 June 2015
International Seed Federation (2013) Errors and omissions insurance. http://www.worldseed.org/cms/medias/file/TradeIssues/ErrorAndOmissionsInsurance/Seedsmens_Errors_Omissions_Insurance.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2015
James C (2014) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2014. ISAAA Brief 49. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/default.asp. Accessed 4 June 2015
Lawson C (2014) Intellectual property. In: Ludlow K, Smyth SJ, Falck-Zepeda J (eds) Socio-economic considerations in biotechnology regulation. Springer, New York, pp 177–188
LEI (2008) EU policy on GMOs. LEI, The Hague
Oguamanam C (2014) Developing countries and the legal institutions at the intersection of agbiotech and development. In: Smyth SJ, Phillips PWB, Castle D (eds) Handbook on agriculture, biotechnology and development. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, pp 230–242
Phillips PWB (2007) Governing transformative technological innovation: Who’s in charge?. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham
Phillips PWB (2011) LLP impacts on global trade, agricultural innovation and commodity prices. Presentation to GM Co-existence Conference, Vancouver, Canada, October 27
Pigou AC (1932) The economics of welfare, 4th edn. MacMillian, London
Reckon (2010) Pareto improvements and Kaldor-Hicks efficiency criterion. http://www.reckon.co.uk/open/Pareto_improvements_and_Kaldor-Hicks_efficiency_criterion. Accessed 3 May 2015
Ryan CD, Smyth SJ (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
Smyth SJ, Phillips PWB, Spearin D (2003) Economic impact of the Saskatchewan Seeds Industry. Study prepared for Sask. Seed Growers Association, Saskatoon
Smyth SJ, Kerr WA, Phillips PWB (2013) Accelerating adoption of GM crops through a trade liability regime. Plant Biotechnol J 11:527–534
Smyth SJ, Phillips PWB, Castle D (2014a) Handbook on agriculture, biotechnology and development. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham
Smyth SJ, Phillips PWB, Kerr W, Phillipson M (2014b) Conflicting rules for the international trade of GM products: does international law provide a solution? AgBioForum 17(2):105–122
Stein AJ, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2010) International trade and the global pipeline of GM Crops. Nat Biotechnol 28(1):23–25
United States Department of Agriculture – Economic Research Services (2013) Genetically engineered varieties of corn, upland cotton, and soybeans, by State and for the United States, 2000-13. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx. Accessed 13 May, 2015
Western Producer (2015) Canada to unveil new GM tolerance policy. http://www.producer.com/2015/07/canada-to-unveil-new-gm-tolerance-policy/. Assessed 10 July, 2015
World Trade Organization (2006) Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products case. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm. Accessed 13 May, 2015
Acknowledgments
The authors’ research was partially funded by Genome Canada and Genome Prairie.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smyth, S.J., Phillips, P.W.B. Incomplete coexistence systems and international food trade impacts. Transgenic Res 24, 1003–1016 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-015-9900-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-015-9900-x