scholarly journals Farmers’ Willingness to Adopt Late Blight-Resistant Genetically Modified Potatoes

Agronomy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans De Steur ◽  
Ellen J. Van Loo ◽  
Jasmien Maes ◽  
Godelieve Gheysen ◽  
Wim Verbeke
Keyword(s):  
Late Blight ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Potato Cultivar ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Gm Crops ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Willingness To Adopt ◽  
Gm Potato

The commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops remains highly contested in the European Union (EU). While research has mainly focused on public and consumer opinions, few studies have investigated farmers’ reactions towards such crops. This study aims to determine farmers’ willingness to adopt a late blight-resistant (LBR) GM potato cultivar (Bintje) in Flanders, Belgium (n = 384). The findings demonstrate that more than half (54.7%) of the farmers have the intention to adopt this GM potato if it becomes available. Farmers’ willingness to adopt is mainly influenced by ethical concerns about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) (negative) and perceived economic benefits of LBR GM potatoes (positive). Knowledge about GM technology decreases the likelihood of being indifferent, as compared to being willing to adopt or being opposed. As such, efforts to improve knowledge alone would not be considered an effective strategy to improve adoption rates among farmers. Socio-economic concerns about GMOs, environmental benefit perceptions of LBR GM potatoes, and socio-demographic and farm variables were not significant as potential determinants of farmers’ likelihood to adopt this GM potato. Our findings lend support to a potentially favorable climate to introduce this GM potato in Flanders, Belgium, an EU region where opt-out measures to restrict cultivation of approved GM crops were not taken.

The Member States’ Long and Winding Road to Partial Regulatory Autonomy in Cultivating Genetically Modified Crops in the EU

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Poli
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Gm Crops ◽  
Member States ◽  
Gm Maize ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Gm Potato ◽  
Mon 810

Member States wishing to cultivate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have always been a minority in the EU. Only eight out of twenty-seven have experienced transgenic agriculture. Throughout the years, the opposition to this form of farming has become a genuinely transnational phenomenon given that many regions of different European countries declared themselves GMO-free. Moreover, Member States such as Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, Poland and, most recently, Hungary officially banned transgenic agriculture within their borders altogether. France and Germany suspended the cultivation of GM maize MON 810, respectively in 2008 and 2009.In addition, the EU has previously authorized only two GM crops: GM maize MON 810 (authorization renewed in 2008) and GM potato EH92-527-1 (2010), known as the ‘Amflora potato.’ The cautious approach towards transgenic farming is also witnessed by the long and contested process of renewal of the permit to cultivate GM maize MON 810 and the issue of the authorization for the Amflora potato.

scholarly journals GMOs and Economic Development in Peru: A Myth or an Opportunity?

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Diego Baxerias ◽  
Carol Banda
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Renewable Energy Sources ◽  
Theory Of The Firm ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Energy Sources ◽  
Market Structures ◽  
Agriculture Industry ◽  
Potential Benefits

Peru has a 10-year ban on genetically modified (GM) crops and food that was approved by the Peruvian congress in 2011. Is it scientifically justified or is it a cause and effect fallacy that will make Peru fall behind in taking advantage of this technology and its potential benefits to everyone else in the economy? In order to answer this question, a literature review was carried out to examine the three most commonly used arguments against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by farmers and all those related to the agriculture industry, reaching the conclusion that they are not one hundred percent plausible. Further research showed the multiple, potential economic benefits that GM seeds could bring about to Peru, which are related to increased labor productivity, the development of human capital, and the expansion of renewable energy sources and its implications for trade and employment – the environmental and health benefits of GMO varieties are also discussed. This paper elaborates on such matters by applying different macro and microeconomic concepts, i.e., market structures and competition, the theory of the firm, and scarcity, among others; and provides insights about the different socio-economic realities present in Peru and possible ways to improve them.

Farmers prevailing perception profiles regarding GM crops: A classification proposal

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 952-966 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Almeida ◽  
Luisa Massarani
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
Stakeholder Group ◽  
Gm Crops ◽  
Genetically Modified Food ◽  
Public Controversy ◽  
Complex Variety

Genetically modified organisms have been at the centre of a major public controversy, involving different interests and actors. While much attention has been devoted to consumer views on genetically modified food, there have been few attempts to understand the perceptions of genetically modified technology among farmers. By investigating perceptions of genetically modified organisms among Brazilian farmers, we intend to contribute towards filling this gap and thereby add the views of this stakeholder group to the genetically modified debate. A comparative analysis of our data and data from other studies indicate there is a complex variety of views on genetically modified organisms among farmers. Despite this diversity, we found variations in such views occur within limited parameters, concerned principally with expectations or concrete experiences regarding the advantages of genetically modified crops, perceptions of risks associated with them, and ethical questions they raise. We then propose a classification of prevailing profiles to represent the spectrum of perceptions of genetically modified organisms among farmers.

Coexistence of Genetically Modified and Non-GM Crops in the European Union: A Review

2009 ◽  
pp. 203-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yann Devos ◽  
Matty Demont ◽  
Koen Dillen ◽  
Dirk Reheul ◽  
Matthias Kaiser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Gm Crops ◽  
The European Union

Research on Safety Hazard Control of Genetically Modified Organisms Based on Compensation Laws

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chensong Fei
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Safety Hazards ◽  
Safety Hazard ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Hazard Control

In this paper, we firstly analyzed the categories and characteristics of safety hazards of genetically modified organisms. Then, we summarized and compared the laws on safety hazard compensation for genetically modified organisms in the United States, the European Union and China. Finally, suggestions were put forward to solve the existing problems in compensation laws in China so as to ensure the healthy and orderly development of China's genetically modified biological industry. 

scholarly journals THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs)

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-20
Author(s):  
Anisa ◽  
Chelsilya ◽  
Grace Yohana ◽  
Mucco Eva ◽  
Morry Zefanya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Current technological advances have been present in all aspects of human life, including technological advances in biotechnology. Biotechnology not only raises hope for science but also raises heated debates among scientists, especially between the European Union and the US. This debate arises because of differences in perspective between the EU and the US. The EU has stringent rules regarding the development efforts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). At the same time, the US thinks that GMOs are part of agriculture, so there is no need for any special laws to regulate them. Various side effects also come hand in hand with the birth of GMOs. They are ranging from adverse effects on human health, the health of food products, and even environmental damage. The development of GMOs can damage the ecosystem of species that exist in the environment. Still, more complex problems arise due to GMOs like economic problems and monopolies.   Keywords: The  GMOs, The EU, The US.

Genetically Modified Organisms

2019 ◽  
pp. 508-530
Author(s):  
Anne Saab
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Gm Foods ◽  
Product Regulation

This chapter examines comparative approaches to risk assessment and regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It first provides a brief background on the emergence, increased use, and controversy surrounding GMOs as well as the important legal questions and complexities they raise before discussing the legal approaches used to assess and regulate risks associated with GM foods, labelling of GM foods, and the application of intellectual property rights (IPRs) to GMOs. In particular, it considers risk assessment in the United States and in the European Union, focusing on the precautionary approach versus the permissive approach. It also compares process regulation and product regulation for regulating the risks posed by GMOs in the United States and the European Union, along with risk assessment and regulation in Brazil, China, and Costa Rica. Finally, it analyses the legal framework for IPRs as they apply to GMOs and comparative approaches to patenting GMOs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document