Business and its Environment.

A wide gap exists between the rapid acceptance of genetically modified (GM) crops for cultivation by farmers in many countries and in the global markets for food and feed, and the often-limited acceptance by consumers. This review contrasts the advances of practical applications of agricultural biotechnology with the divergent paths—also affecting the development of virus resistant transgenic crops—of political and regulatory frameworks for GM crops and food in different parts of the world. These have also shaped the different opinions of consumers. Important factors influencing consumer’s attitudes are the perception of risks and benefits, knowledge and trust, and personal values. Recent political and societal developments show a hardening of the negative environment for agricultural biotechnology in Europe, a growing discussion—including calls for labeling of GM food—in the USA, and a careful development in China towards a possible authorization of GM rice that takes the societal discussions into account. New breeding techniques address some consumers’ concerns with transgenic crops, but it is not clear yet how consumers’ attitudes towards them will develop. Discussions about agriculture would be more productive, if they would focus less on technologies, but on common aims and underlying values.

Public Acceptance of Plant Biotechnology and GM Crops

There has been an important shift in the pattern of divergence between consumer and environmental protection policies in Europe and the United States. From the 1960s through the mid 1980s American regulatory standards tended to be more stringent, comprehensive and innovative than in either individual European countries or in the European Union (EU). However, since around 1990 the obverse has been true; many important EU consumer and environmental regulations are now more precautionary than their American counterparts.The ‘new’ politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe are attributable to three inter-related factors: a series of regulatory failures within Europe, broader and stronger political support for more stringent and comprehensive regulatory standards within Europe and the growth in the regulatory competence of the European Union.In many respects, European regulatory politics and policies since the 1990s resemble those of the United States during the 1970s. Thus health, safety and environmental politics and policies in the United States are no longer as distinctive as many scholars have portrayed them.

/pdf/the-hare-and-the-tortoise-revisited-the-new-politics-of-428q6axcs7.pdf

The Hare and the Tortoise Revisited: The New Politics of Consumer and Environmental Regulation in Europe

This paper has a number of purposes. First, it revisits the older theory of reserve adequacy and optimality to see whether this can still be used and perhaps strengthened in ways that would inform the current debate. Second, it explores the connection between reserve adequacy and currency crisis in the light of recent experience and empirical research. Third, it critically investigates alternative rule-of-thumb measures of reserve adequacy. Fourth, and drawing on the foregoing analysis, it examines the extent to which crisis countries should seek to replenish and build up their international reserves in the post-crisis period. Additional owned reserves represent a guaranteed and unconditional source of liquidity; is this what is needed?

Too Much of a Good Thing? The Adequacy of International Reserves in the Aftermath of Crises

The nexus between water, energy, and food in the context of the global risks: An analysis of the interactions between food, water, and energy security

. The development and marketing of agricultural biotechnology applications has led to controversies over whether and how to regulate this new technology. The European Union (EU) has imposed severe restrictions on agricultural biotechnology, particularly in terms of approval and labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. The United States has adopted a far more permissive approval policy and has not required labeling. This article explains these differences in terms of the collective action capacity of consumer and producer interests, and the institutional environment in which regulation has taken place. We find that the regulatory outcome in the EU can be traced back to nongovernmental organizations’ (NGOs) increased collective action capacity due to public outrage, an institutional environment favorable to anti-biotechnology NGO interests (multilevel regulatory policy making) and a disintegration of the producer coalition due to NGO campaigns and differences in industrial structure. Biotechnology politics in the United States has been dominated by a strong and cohesive coalition of pro-biotechnology upstream and downstream producers and farmers. Because of lower public outrage and a less favorable institutional environment (centralized regulatory policy making), anti-biotechnology NGOs in the United States have been largely excluded from agricultural biotechnology policy making.

Erika Meins

Papers

Technological revolution meets policy and the market: Explaining cross‐national differences in agricultural biotechnology regulation