| | english | español | français |
Go to record ID

  Home|Finding Information|Record details   Printer-friendly version

Information Resource
Record information and status
Record ID
115032
Status
Published
Date of creation
2019-05-29 23:11 UTC (cjg072@mail.usask.ca)
Date of publication
2019-07-04 20:17 UTC (austein.mcloughlin@cbd.int)

General Information
Title
The Quandary of Agricultural Biotechnology, Pure Economic Loss, and Non-Adopters: Comparing Australia, Canada, and the United States
Author
Karinne Ludlow and Stuart Smyth
Language(s)
  • English
Publication date
2011
Subject
Summary, abstract or table of contents
Innovations impact societies in a variety of ways. Successful innovations are utility enhancing, in that they create a higher degree of benefits that offset any of the potential disadvantages of the innovation. Unsuccessful innovations suffer from the reverse, in that they result in more disadvantages than benefits and therefore, are ultimately rejected by society. The innovation of agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) crops has triggered substantial discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the technology. Numerous financial and economic benefits are starting to be recognized by adopters, but some non-adopters are growing increasingly concerned about their ability to profit given the high levels of GM crop adoption. While some might argue that non-adopters of GM crops are the conventional economic losers of this innovation, the reality is that demand for non-GM products is higher, in large part, because of consumer desires to avoid GM food products. The concept of pure economic loss in relation to innovation posits that those negatively impacted by the innovation of GM crops are entitled to compensation that offsets the externality. In undertaking a thorough assessment of pure economic loss and GM crops, this article evaluates the logic for, and efficiencies of, having compensation funded via the use of courts versus government regulations. This article considers whether non-adopter rights are developing in the case of GM crops and what governance response mechanism is best suited to those claims. It is concluded that the decision over whether to support or reject an innovation is too important to the larger society as a whole to be decided by the courts.
Thematic areas
Additional Information
Type of resource
  • Article (journal / magazine / newspaper)
Publisher and its location
American Bar Association
Rights
COPYRIGHT 2011 American Bar Association
Format
34 pages
PDF
Source
Jurimetrics Journal of Law, Science and Technology. 52.1 (Fall 2011): p7.; Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 26