Wolf, M. McGarry (author) and Domegan, C. (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2002
Published:
International
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C21692
Notes:
Pages 25-37 in Vittorio Santaniello, Robert E. Evenson and David Zilberman (eds.), Market development for genetically modified foods. CABI Publishing, Oxon, United Kingdom. 318 pages.
Spetsidis, Nickolas M. (author) and Schamel, Gunter (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2002
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C21696
Notes:
Pages 63-79 in Vittorio Santaniello, Robert E. Evenson and David Zilberman (eds.), Market development for genetically modified foods. CABI Publishing, Oxon, United Kingdom. 318 pages.
Hallman, W.K. (author), Schilling, B. (author), Hossain, Ferdaus (author), Onyango, B. (author), Adelaja, A. (author / Food Policy Institute), and Food Policy Institute
Format:
Research report
Publication Date:
2002-06
Published:
USA: Food Policy Institute FPI Publications
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C21835
Agricultural Economics (Amsterdam, Netherlands), This paper develops a model of differentiated consumers to examine the consumption effects of genetic modification (GM) under alternative labelling regimes and segregation enforcement scenarios. Analytical results show that if consumers perceive GM products as being different than their traditional counterparts, GM affects consumer welfare and, thus, consumption decisions. When the existence of market imperfections in one or more stages of the supply chain prevents the transmission of cost savings associated with the new technology to consumers, GM results in welfare losses for consumers. The analysis shows that the relative welfare ranking of the `no labelling' and `mandatory labelling' regimes depends on: (i) the level of consumer aversion to GM products; (ii) the size of marketing and segregation costs under mandatory labelling; (iii) the share of the GM product in total production; and (iv) the extent to which GM products are incorrectly labelled as non-GM products.
