The loss from underutilizing GM technologies

This article introduces a framework based on a real-option approach to assess the economics of delaying the introduction of genetically modified (GM) technologies in agriculture due to concerns about their unintended effects (unexpected environmental side effects). We applied our framework to analyze the consequences of delaying the introduction of Golden Rice, GM corn in much of the world, and GM wheat and rice globally. In the case of Golden Rice, we found that delay of more than 10 years of introduction of the technology may result in several millions of eyesights lost. The damage of the technology must be greater than between $2.7 and $29 billion of discounted net benefits expected to be gained from the technology under various assumptions. The analysis also suggests that restriction of the adoption of GM in corn, rice, and wheat is justified if the net present value of the damage is above $300 billion to $1.22 trillion, depending on assumptions about impacts and interest rate. Finally, the value of information gained in this year must be at least between $27 and $82 billion to justify the one-year delay in the introduction of GMOs. The analysis shows that precaution is very costly.

[1]  Steven E. Sexton,et al.  The impact of agricultural biotechnology on supply and land-use , 2014, Environment and Development Economics.

[2]  David Zilberman,et al.  Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise and Prospects of Genetically Modified Crops , 2014 .

[3]  D. Zilberman,et al.  The economic power of the Golden Rice opposition , 2014, Environment and Development Economics.

[4]  Alexander J. Stein,et al.  Global value of GM rice: a review of expected agronomic and consumer benefits. , 2013, New biotechnology.

[5]  K. Brownell,et al.  The impact of food prices on consumption: a systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand for food. , 2010, American journal of public health.

[6]  M. Qaim The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops , 2009 .

[7]  Robert L. Paarlberg,et al.  Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa , 2008 .

[8]  E. Rybicki,et al.  Maize streak virus-resistant transgenic maize: a first for Africa. , 2007, Plant biotechnology journal.

[9]  David Zilberman,et al.  Challenge of biofuel: filling the tank without emptying the stomach? , 2007 .

[10]  Felicia Wu,et al.  Mycotoxin Reduction in Bt Corn: Potential Economic, Health, and Regulatory Impacts , 2006, Transgenic Research.

[11]  David Zilberman,et al.  Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries , 2003, Science.

[12]  Bruno Jullien,et al.  Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the ‘Precautionary Principle’ , 2000 .

[13]  Wallace E. Oates,et al.  Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm? , 1995 .

[14]  K. Arrow,et al.  Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility , 1974 .

[15]  E. Prescott,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty , 1971 .

[16]  Z. Griliches HYBRID CORN: AN EXPLORATION IN THE ECONOMIC OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE , 1957 .

[17]  Chen Hao,et al.  The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States , 2010 .

[18]  Orley Ashenfelter,et al.  The Economic Impacts of Climate Change : Evidence from Agricultural Output and Random Fluctuations in Weather , 2007 .