
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
The Unintended Consequences of Technological Change: Winners and Losers from GM Technologies and the Policy Response in the Organic Food Market

doi: 10.3390/su7067667
It is often said that innovations create winners and losers. All innovations are somewhat disruptive, but some have more distributed effects. We have a sense of who the winners are and how much they gain. Yet, how much do losers actually lose? Organic farmers frequently like to publicly announce that they are the losers following the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops, yet consumers in search of non-GM products have helped increase demand for organic products, something that would not have occurred in the absence of GM crops. Are organic farmers really losers? This article lays out the argument that were it not for the commercialization of GM crop varieties in the mid-1990s, organic production and food sectors would not be at the level they enjoy today. That is, the commercialization of GM crops has made the organic industry better off than had GM crops not been commercialized. Theoretical modelling of the organic benefits is complemented by supportive market data. The article concludes that in spite of numerous vocal offerings about the adverse impacts suffered by the organic industry due to GM crop production, the organic industry has gained significantly from that which they vociferously criticize.
labelling, TJ807-830, TD194-195, Renewable energy sources, spill-over benefits, GE1-350, GM crops, socio-economic considerations, Environmental effects of industries and plants, coexistence, coexistence; GM crops; labelling; social welfare; socio-economic considerations; spill-over benefits, Environmental sciences, social welfare, jel: jel:Q, jel: jel:Q0, jel: jel:Q2, jel: jel:Q3, jel: jel:Q5, jel: jel:O13, jel: jel:Q56
labelling, TJ807-830, TD194-195, Renewable energy sources, spill-over benefits, GE1-350, GM crops, socio-economic considerations, Environmental effects of industries and plants, coexistence, coexistence; GM crops; labelling; social welfare; socio-economic considerations; spill-over benefits, Environmental sciences, social welfare, jel: jel:Q, jel: jel:Q0, jel: jel:Q2, jel: jel:Q3, jel: jel:Q5, jel: jel:O13, jel: jel:Q56
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).7 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Average influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average
