GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL TRADE: A CASE STUDY ON SOY

Autores

  • Paulo Ricardo da Silva Oliveira oliveira.prs@gmail.com
    Universidade Estadual de Campinas https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1181-2867
  • José Maria Ferreira Jardim da Silveira jmsilv52@gmail.com
    Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)

DOI:

10.19093/res7447

Palavras-chave:

GMO Trade, Technological Diffusion, Technological Innovation and Trade, Constant Market Share Analysis, GMO Economic Impacts,

Resumo

This paper discusses the introduction of genetically modified (GM) seeds in agriculture and their impact on the modus operandiof international trade of agricultural commodities. The central argument in this paper is that the commercial rejection by some markets, especially in the European Union, resulted in broad market share restructuring of the three largest international soy exporters: the United States, Brazil, and Argentina. These findings came as a result of trade flow analysis, taking into account the source and destination of soy in the soy trade using the quantitative Constant Market Share method. 

Taking into account that at the time of the study there were no legal trade barriers put up by the European Union, which was resistant to the use of Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant soy (GTS-40-3-2), it is assumed that the effects resulting from its commercial rejection were due to demand factors and not for any official trade ban. It is concluded that technology adoption caused changes in factors that led to export growths. However, despite changes in market share, the globalization effect prevented exporters from incurring greater trade losses since they always had the option of moving their products to markets with lower levels of “hatred”. 

Biografia do Autor

Paulo Ricardo da Silva Oliveira, Universidade Estadual de Campinas

Professor do Centro de Administração e Economia, Docente Extensionista.

José Maria Ferreira Jardim da Silveira, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)

Professor do Instituto de Economia da Unicamp

Referências

Ahmadi-Esfahani, F. Z. (2006). Constant market shares analysis: uses, limitations and prospects. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 50(4), 510–526. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2006.00364.x

Akerlof, G. (1970). The market for“ lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The quarterly journal of economics, 84(3), 488–500.

Anderson, K. (2010). Economic impacts of policies affecting crop biotechnology and trade. New biotechnology, 27(5), 558–64. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2010.05.012

Anderson, K., & Jackson, L. A. (2004). Standards , trade and protection : the case of GMOs. Adelaide.

BIO. (2012). Biotechnology Industry Organization: Agricultural Product Database. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.biotradestatus.com/

Borges, I. de C. (2003). Biotecnologia e comercio externo : uma analise da inserção brasileira. University of Campinas.

Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., & Nesbitt, R. C. (Eds.). (2007). The Public. The Media & Agricultural Biotechnology (p. 405). Oxon: CABI.

Carter, C., & Gruère, G. (2006). International approval and labeling regulations of genetically modified food in major trading countries. In R. E. ( U. of M. Just, D. Alston, Juliian M. (University of California, & B. Zilberman, David (University of California (Eds.), Regulating agricultural biotechnology: economics … (pp. 459–480). New York, NY: Springer New York.

Carvalho, F. (1995). O comportamento das exportações brasileiras ea dinâmica do complexo agroindustrial. 1995. São Paulo University.

CERA. (2012). GM Crop Database. Center for Environmental Risk Assessment (CERA). Washington D.C.: ILSI Research Foundation. Retrieved from http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database

Compass, G. (2012). GMO Database. Retrieved from http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/gmo/db/

Disdie, A.-C., & Fontagné, L. (2009). Trade Impact of European Measures on GMOs Condemned by the WTO Panel.

FAOSTAT. (n.d.). Retrieved June 02, 2013, from http://faostat.fao.org/site/406/default.aspx

Feinberg, S. (2000). Do world product mandates really matter? Journal of International Business Studies, 31(1), 155–167.

Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., & Allum, N. (2010). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010 Winds of change? (p. 170). Luxembourg.

Greenpeace. (2004). Public’s perception of Genetically Engineered Food: Summary of Report. Retrieved from htpp://www.greenpeace.org.hk

Griffith, D., Hu, M., & Ryans, J. (2000). Process standardization across intra-and inter-cultural relationships. Journal of International Business …, 31(2), 303–324.

Grimsrud, K. (2004). Consumer attitudes to genetically modified food in Norway. Journal of Agricultural ….

Huang, J, Yang, J., & Yang, W. (2012). Trade and Economic Implications of Low Level Presence and Asynchronous Authorizations of Agricultural Biotechnology Varieties: A Case Study in China. In 28th International Conference of Agricultural Economists: The Global Bioeconomy (pp. 1–37). Foz do Iguaçu- Brazil.

Huang, Jikun, Qiu, H., Bai, J., & Pray, C. (2006). Awareness, acceptance of and willingness to buy genetically modified foods in Urban China. Appetite, 46(2), 144–51. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2005.11.005

III, R. H., & Kashlak, R. (1999). National influences on multinational corporation control system selection. MIR: Management International Review, 39(2), 167–189.

Isaac, G. E., Perdikis, N., & Kerr, W. a. (2004). Cracking export markets with genetically modified crops: What is the entry mode strategy? International Marketing Review, 21(4/5), 536–548. doi:10.1108/02651330410547180

Jepma, C. J. (1986). Extensions and Application Possibilities of the Constant Market Shares Analysis: The Case of the Developing Countries’ Exports (p. 257). Groningen RijksUniversity.

Leamer, E., & Stern, R. (2006). Quantitative international economics. Journal of International Economics (p. 209). Aldine Transaction.

Madhok, A., & Osegowitsch, T. (2000). The international biotechnology industry: a dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of International Business …, 31(2), 325–335.

Mccluskey, J. J., Grimsrud, K., & Wahl, T. I. (2006). Comparison of Consumer Responses to Genetically Modified Foods in Asia, North America, and Europe. In R. Just, J. Alston, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Regulating agricultural biotechnology : economics and policy (p. 732). New York, NY: Springer New York.

Meyer, K. (2001). Institutions, transaction costs, and entry mode choice in Eastern Europe. Journal of international business studies, 2, 357–367.

Moschini, G. (2004). Innovation and Trade with Market Failure: The Case of Genetically Modified Products, 86(3), 634–648.

Noussair, C., Robin, S., & Ruffieux, B. (2002). Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels? Economics Letters, 75(1), 47–53. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00594-8

Oldersma, H., & Bergeijk, P. Van. (1993). Not so constant! The constant-market-shares analysis and the exchange rate. De Economist, 141(3), 380–401.

Oliveira, A. L. R., & Silveira, J. M. F. J. (2013). Restructuring of the Corn Supply Chain in Brazil : Facing the Challenges in Logistics or Regulation of Biotechnology. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 16(4).

Oliveira, A. L. R., Silveira, J. M. F. J., & ALVIM, A. M. (2012). Cartagena protocol, biosafety and grain segregation: The effects on the soybean logistics in Brazil. E3 Journal of Agricultural research and development, 2(1), 17–30.

Oliveira, P. R. S. (2012). Os Organismos Geneticamente Modificados e os Impactos no Comércio Internacional Agrícola: Um Estudo de Caso da Soja. University of Campinas.

Oliveira, P. R. S., Silveira, J. M. F. J., Magalhães, M. M., & Souza, R. F. (2013). ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGIES WITH MARKET REJECTION AND RETURN ON EXPORTS: BRAZIL, UNITED STATES, ARGENTINA AND THE CASE OF GM-SOYBEANS. In 17th ICABR Conference: “INNOVATION AND POLICY FOR THE BIOECONOMY.” Ravello - Italy.

Paarlberg, R. (2001). The politics of precaution: genetically modified crops in developing countries. (p. 200). Whashington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (September 17, 2001).

PRICE. (2013). PRICE | PRactical Implementation of Coexistence in Europe. Retrieved from http://price-coexistence.com/

Richardson, J. (1971). Constant-market-shares analysis of export growth. Journal of International Economics, 1(197 1), 227–239.

Roessing, A., & Lazzarotto, J. (2005). Soja transgênica no Brasil: situação atual e perspectivas para os próximos anos. … de Soja da Região Central do Brasil (p. 37). Brasília.

Rugman, A. (1976). Risk reduction by international diversification. Journal of International Business Studies, 7(2), 75–80.

Schomberg, R. von. (1998). An appraisal of the working in practice of directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms.

Silveira, J. da, & Borges, I. de C. (2007). Brazil: Confronting the challenges of global competition and protecting biodiversity. In S.-F. (New S. U. Parr (Ed.), The gene revolution: GM … (p. 248). London: Earthscan.

Smyth, S., Kerr, W. a., & Davey, K. a. (2006). Closing markets to biotechnology: does it pose an economic risk if markets are globalised? In International Journal of Technology and Globalisation (Vol. 2, p. 377). doi:10.1504/IJTG.2006.011923

Stein, A. J., & Rodriguez-Cerezo, E. (2009). The global pipeline of new GM crops Implications of asynchronous approval (p. 109).

Tomich, F. A., & Leite, C. A. M. (1999). Competitividade das exportações brasileiras de frutas selecionadas. Universidade Federal de Viçosa.

Tyszynski, H. (1951). World Trade in Manufactured Commodities, 1899‐19501. The Manchester School, 19(3), 272–304. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9957.1951.tb00012.x

Vigani, M., Raimondi, V., & Olper, A. (2012). International trade and endogenous standards: the case of GMO regulations. World Trade Review, 11(03), 415–437. doi:10.1017/S1474745612000262

Downloads

Publicado

2019-02-07

Como Citar

Oliveira, P. R. da S., & da Silveira, J. M. F. J. (2019). GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL TRADE: A CASE STUDY ON SOY. Revista De Estudos Sociais, 20(41), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.19093/res7447

Edição

v. 20 n. 41 (2018)

Seção

Artigos

Licença

Autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:

    1. Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.

    1. Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.

  1. Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) a qualquer ponto antes ou durante o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado.

Artigos mais lidos pelo mesmo(s) autor(es)