The maximum incremental social tolerable irreversible costs (MISTICs) and other benefits and costs of introducing transgenic maize in the EU-15

Wesseler, Justus and Scatasta, Sara and Nillesen, Eleonora (2007): The maximum incremental social tolerable irreversible costs (MISTICs) and other benefits and costs of introducing transgenic maize in the EU-15. Published in: Pedobiologia , Vol. 51, (2007): pp. 261-269.

Abstract

The decision to release a new transgenic crop variety for planting in the European Union (EU) is a decision under irreversibility and uncertainty. We use a real option model to assess the ex-ante incremental benefits and costs of the decision to release Bt maize and HT maize in the EU-15 member states. The analysis uses Eurostat data for modelling the benefits and costs of non-transgenic maize using partial equilibrium models. The farm-level benefits and costs of Bt maize and HT maize are derived from field trials conducted within the EU-funded ECOGEN project in combination with secondary data sources. Adoption curves, hurdle rates and Maximum Incremental Social Tolerable Irreversible Costs (MISTICs) are calculated at country level for selected EU-15 member states. In general, the results show that the MISTICs on a per capita level are very small confirming previous results calculated in values for the year 1995. The MISTICs per farm are much larger. This indicates a problem for decision makers.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: agriculture policy, biotechnology, GMOs, MISTICs,technical change
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences ; Diffusion Processes; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture > Q18 - Agricultural Policy ; Food Policy

References

Andersen, M.N., Sausse, C., Lacroix, B., Caul, S., Messe´an, A., 2007. Agricultural studies of GM maize and the field experimental infrastructure of ECOGEN. Pedobiologia 51, 175–184.

Antle, J., Pingali, P., 1994. Pesticides, productivity and farmers health: a Philippine case study. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 76, 418–430.

Banse, M., Grethe, H., Nolte, S., 2004. European Simulation Model (ESIM). In: GAMS: User Handbook. Goettingen.

Carpenter, J., Gianessi, L., 1999. Herbicide tolerant soybeans: why growers are adopting roundup ready varieties. AgBioForum 2, 1–11.

Chern, W.S., Rickertsen, K., Tsuboi, N., Fu, T., 2003. Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for genetically modified vegetable oil and salmon: a multiple-country assessment. AgBioForum 5, 105–112.

Commission of the European Communities, 1999. 2194th Council meeting – Environment. Press release C/99/ 203, Luxembourg.

Conrad, J., 2000. Wilderness: options to preserve, extract, or develop. Resour. Energy Econ. 22, 205–219.

Demont, M., Tollens, E., 2004. First impact of biotechnology in the EU: Bt corn adoption in Spain. Ann. Appl. Biol. 145, 197–207.

Demont, M., Wesseler, J., Tollens, E., 2004. Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 31, 1–18.

Demont, M., Wesseler, J., Tollens, E., 2005. Irreversible costs and benefits of transgenic crops: what are they? In: Wesseler, J. (Ed.), Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 113–122.

Dixit, A., Pindyck, R.S., 1994. Investment Under Uncertainty.Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Klotz-Ingram, C., Jans, S., 2000. Farm-level effects of adopting genetically engineered crops in the USA In: Lesser, W.H. (Ed.), Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy. Proceedings of NE-165 Conference, June 24–25, 1999, Washington, DC. Including papers presented at the International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research Conference, June 17–19, 1999. Rome Tor Vergata, Italy. Part IV, Regulation and Trade (Chapter 20).

Fleischer, G., 1998. O¨ konomische Bewertungskriterien in der Pflanzenschutzpolitik – Das Beispiel der Zulassungspru efung. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, Kiel.

Frisvold, G.B., Sullivan, J., Raneses, A., 2003. Genetic improvements in major US crops: the size and distribution of benefits. Agric. Econ. 28, 109–119.

Fulton, M., Keyowski, L., 1999. The producer benefits of herbicide-resistant Canola. AgBioForum 2, 1–11.

Gianessi, L., Sankula, S., Reigner, N., 2003. Plant Biotechnology: Potential Impact for Improving Pest Management in European Agriculture. The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington.

James, C., 2004. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops 2004. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) Briefs No. 32-2004.

Kalaitzandonakes, N., 1999. A farm level perspective on agrobiotechnology: how much value and for whom? AgBioForum 2, 1–4.

Kendall, H.W., Beachy, R., Eisner, T., Gould, F., Herdt, R., Raven, P.H., Schell, J.S., Swaminathan, M.S., 1997. Bioengineering of Crops. Environmental and Socially Sustainable Development Studies and Monograph Series 23. The World Bank, Washington.

Klotz-Ingram, C., Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Jans, S., William, D.M., 1999. Farm-level production effects related to the adoption of genetically modified cotton for pest management. AgBioForum 2, 73–84.

Krimsky, S., Wrubel, R., 1996. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment. University of Illinois Press, Champaign.

Kuiper, A., Kleter, G., Noordam, M., 2000. Risks of the release of transgenic herbicide-resistant plants with respect to humans, animals, and the environment. Crop Prot. 19, 773–778.

Leitzel, J., Weisman, E., 1999. Investing in policy reform. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 155, 696–709.

McDonald, R., Siegel, D., 1986. The value of waiting to invest. Quart. J. Econ. 101, 707–728.

Moschini, G., Lapan, H., Sobolevsky, A., 2000. Roundup ready soybeans and welfare effects in the soybean complex. Agribusiness 16, 33–55.

Nillesen, E., Scatasta, S., Wesseler, J., 2006a. Do environmental impacts differ for Bt, Ht and conventional corn with respect to pesticide use in Europe? An empirical assessment using the environmental impact quotient. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin 29, pp. 109–118.

Nillesen, E., Scatasta, S., Wesseler, J., 2006b. Estimating social welfare impacts of Bt maize under different adoption scenarios in Europe. Paper presented at the 10th International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICABR), Ravello, Italy, June 29–July 2. ICABR, Ravello.

Peterson, R.K.D., Meyer, S.J., Wolf, A.T., Wolt, J.D., Davis, P.M., 2006. Genetically engineered plants, endangered species, and risk: a temporal and spatial exposure assessment for Karner blue butterfly larvae and Bt maize pollen. Risk Anal. 26, 845–858.

Pray, C.E., Ma, D., Huang, J., Qiao, F., 2001. Impact of Bt cotton in China. World Dev. 29, 813–825.

Pretty, J.N., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine, R.E., Mason, C.F., Morison, J.I.L., Raven, H., Rayment, M.D., van der Bijl, G., 2000. An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agric. Syst. 65, 113–136.

Richards, T.J., Green, G.P., 2003. Economic hysteresis in variety selection. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 35, 1–14.

Richards, T., Patterson, P.M., 1998. Hysteresis and the shortage of agricultural labor. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80, 683–695.

Scatasta, S., Wesseler, J., Demont, M., 2006a. A critical assessment of methods for analysis of social welfare impacts of genetically modified crops: a literature survey. Working Paper Mansholt Graduate School MWP- 27, Wageningen University, Wageningen.

Scatasta, S., Wesseler, J., Demont, M., 2006b. Irreversibility, uncertainty, and the adoption of transgenic crops: experiences from applications to HTsugar beet, HTcorn,and Bt corn. In: Just, R.E., Alston, J.M., Zilberman, D.(Eds.), Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy. Springer, Berlin, pp. 327–352.

Scatasta, S., Wesseler, J., Nillesen, E., 2006c. Real option and the adoption of transgenic crops: an intertemporal perspective. Paper presented at the 10th International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICABR), Ravello, Italy, June 29–July 2. ICABR, Ravello.

Traxler, G., Falck-Zepeda, J., 1999. The distribution of benefits from the introduction of transgenic cotton varieties. AgBioForum 2, 94–98.

Trigeorgis, L., 1996. Real Options. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Waibel, H., Fleischer, G., 1998. Kosten und Nutzen des chemischen Pflanzenschutzes in der deutschen Landwirtschaft aus gesamtwirtschaftlicher Sicht. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, Kiel.

Weaver, R.D., Wesseler, J., 2004. Monopolistic pricing power for transgenic crops when technology adopters face irreversible benefits and costs. Appl. Econ. Lett. 11, 969–973.

Wesseler, J., 2003. Resistance economics of transgenic crops. A real option approach. In: Laxminarayan, R. (Ed.), Battling Resistance to Antibiotics. An Economic Approach. Resources for the Future, Washington, pp. 214–237.

Wesseler, J. (Ed.), 2005. Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops. Springer, Dordrecht.

Winter-Nelson, A., Amegbeto, K., 1998. Option values to conservation and agricultural price policy: application to terrace construction in Kenya. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80, 409–418.