Biotechnology in China - regulation, investment, and delayed commercialization.

China has been investing heavily in biotechnology to increase agricultural productivity. While a number of Chinese developed GM crops have cleared the required scientific hurdles - some more than a decade ago - commercialization has not been approved. The regulatory regime for GMOs in China is relatively less well understood than that of the US or the EU. This paper provides a systematic overview of China's regulatory regime, R&D investment and delayed commercialization decisions on biotechnology over the last 40 years and draws some conclusions regarding the likelihood of the commercialization for major GM crops in the future.

Economic surplus implications of Mexico's decision to phaseout genetically modified maize imports.

The Mexican government has decided to ban imports of genetically modified (GM) maize, to rely on agroecology for maize production to satisfy domestic yellow maize requirements. No economic impact assessment of this policy decision was made public, and the implications of this decision for users of yellow maize and consumers are significant. This article measures the economic surplus generated from Mexican GM yellow maize imports and domestic conventional yellow maize production over the last 20 years, and projects the economic surplus generated over five years from adopting agroecology for yellow maize production. We explore three likely scenarios and find that in all of them, yellow maize processors lose almost twice as much economic surplus as producers. In the most conservative loss estimate (Scenario 1), the surplus loss in five years is equivalent to 35% of the economic surplus generated over the last 21 years from GM maize imports and domestic Mexican conventional production. In all simulated Scenarios, between 2024 and 2025 the price of a metric ton of yellow maize will increase 81percent because of the change in production systems (from conventional to agroecology). These financial losses will ultimately factor into the prices consumers pay for poultry and red meat products, resulting in higher domestic retail food prices.

EU Failing FAO Challenge to Improve Global Food Security.

The announcement that the European Union (EU) had reached an agreement allowing Member States (MS) to ban genetically modified (GM) crops confirms that the EU has chosen to ignore the food security challenge issued to the world by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 2009. The FAO suggests that agricultural biotechnology has a central role in meeting the food security challenge.

Accelerating adoption of genetically modified crops in Africa through a trade liability regime.

Given the apparently unbridgeable divide that has developed between the 25 odd countries that grow and trade GM crops and the evolving EU regulatory hurdles, it may be time to consider alternative strategies for realizing a global market for agricultural products. Africa is one area of the world where the battle over GM agriculture is being played out, yet it is the continent where GM could have the greatest positive impact. Numerous African nations, given their long-standing trade connections to European nations, fear that allowing the commercialization of GM crops could lead to comingling of GM and conventional products and, hence, the loss of export opportunities to the EU. These are legitimate concerns. One potential solution that warrants serious consideration would be to establish a pool of funds that could be accessed by African agricultural commodity exporters in instances where exports to Europe are rejected. A production levy could be imposed in leading industrial adopting nations (i.e., Australia, Canada and the United States). The revenue raised would provide an endowment fund that could be used to offset the costs arising from import refusals. African-sourced shipments rejected by the EU will most certainly have alternate markets, but could receive a reduced price or incur higher costs associated with serving alternate markets. The intent of the fund would be to compensate for the real difference between the net returns contracted with European importers and the final market price received. This article examines the feasibility of establishing such a fund and discusses the funding options.