Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T21:28:18.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using environmental bonds to regulate the risks of GM crops: problems and prospects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2003

Siân Mooney  and
David Gerard
Siân Mooney
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, P.O. Box 3354, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA
David Gerard
Affiliation:
Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We examine the characteristics and limitations of the existing system of tort liability for addressing potential environmental damages from GM crops and consider whether environmental bonding could be used to address these risks. We find that in the case of GM crops, a bonding mechanism would complement some of the strengths of tort liability. Specifically, the bonding mechanism provides some protection against bankruptcy, and also shifts the burden of risk toward life science companies that develop the technology. These factors could encourage additional early research by life science firms. However, a bonding mechanism adds to the regulatory apparatus, and would likely increase administrative costs, over tort liability, for public and private parties. Nevertheless, an attractive possibility is that the cumulative outcomes of bonding, e.g., shifting the risk burden, providing a measure of bankruptcy protection, and introducing an additional regulatory component, would mitigate some of the political and social objections to the environmental release of GM crops.

Keywords

environmental bondingtort liabilitygenetically modified cropsenvironmental regulation
Type
Research Article
Information
Environmental Biosafety Research , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 2003 , pp. 25 - 32
Copyright
© ISBR, EDP Sciences, 2003

References

Adam KD, Köhler WH (1996) Evolutionary genetic considerations on the goals and risks in releasing transgenic crops. In Wöhrmann K, Tomiuk J, Sentker A, eds, Transgenic organisms - Biological and Social Implications, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland
Barton, JE, Dracup, M (2000) Genetically modified crops and the environment. Agro. J. 92: 797-802 CrossRef
Baumol WJ, Oates W (1988) The Theory of Environmental Policy, Ed 2. Cambridge University Press
Beringer, J (2000) Releasing genetically modified organisms: will harm outweigh any advantage? J. App. Ecol. 37: 207-214 CrossRef
Billings Gazette (2001) State Increases Charge for Mining Cleanup Bonds. http://www.billingsgazette.com/printer.php? section=local&display=rednews/2001/11/25/stories/local/ 22-bonds.txt
Bonham K (1999) Biotech and the Butterfly. AGWEEK
Butler, D, Reichhardt, T, Abbott, A, Dickson, D, Saegusa, A (1999) Long-term effect of GM crops serves up food for thought. Nature 398: 651-656
Carman MD (1997) Regulatory and Transactional Bonding: A Primer on Surety Bonding for the Mineral Lawyer. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Eastern Mineral Law Institute. http://www.oac.uoguelph.ca/CRSC/faculty/eac.myths.htm
Cooter R, Ulen T (1997) Law and Economics, Ed 2. Addison- Wesley, Reading, MA
Cornwell, L, Costanza, R (1994) An experimental analysis of the effectiveness of an environmental assurance bonding system on player behavior in a simulated firm. Ecol. Eco. 11: 213-226 CrossRef
Constanza, R, Perrings, C (1990) A flexible assurance bonding system for environmental management. Ecol. Eco. 2: 57-75 CrossRef
Dale PJ, Moyes CL (2000) An overview of environmental considerations for GM crops. In Fairbairn C, Scoles G, McHughen A, eds, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on The Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms. University Extension Press, University of Saskatchewan
Economic Research Service (1999) Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management. http://www.econ.ag.gov/ whatsnew/issues/biotech
Gerard, D (2000) The law and economics of reclamation bonds. Resources Policy 26: 189-197 CrossRef
Hama, H, Suzuki, K, Tanaka, H (1992) Inheritance and stability of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis formulations of the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera:Yponomeutidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 27: 355-362 CrossRef
Heap IM (1999a) The Occurrence of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds Worldwide. http://www.weedscience.com/paper/resist97.htm
Heap IM (1999b) International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com
Hurley, TM, Babcock, BA, Hellmich, RL (2001) Bt corn and insect resistance: An economic assessment of refuges. J. Agri. Res. Eco. 26: 176-194
Hruska AJ, Lara Pavón M (1997) In Transgenic Plants in Mesoamerican Agriculture, Zamorano Academic Press, Honduras
Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2001) Technological Change and the Environment. In RFF Discussion Paper 00- 47REV, prepared as a chapter for the forthcoming Handbook of Environmental Economics, North-Holland/Elsevier Science
James C (1998) Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1998. ISAAA Briefs No.8. ISAAA, Ithaca, NY
Johnson B (2000) The environmental impact of GMOs: some possible problems and some possible solutions. In Fairbairn C, Scoles G, McHughen A, eds, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on The Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms, University Extension Press, University of Saskatchewan
Kalaitzondonakes N, Marks LA (1999) Public Opinion of Agbiotech in the US and UK: A Content Analysis Approach. Selected Paper. American Agricultural Economics Associa- tion Annual Meeting, August 8-11, 1999, Nashville, TN
Kolstad, CD, Ulen, TS, Johnson, GV (1990) Ex Post Liability for Harm vs. Ex Ante Safety Regulation: Substitutes or Complements? Am. Eco. Rev. 80: 888-901
Krimsky S, Wrubel R (1996) Agricultural biotechnology and the environment: Science, policy and social issues. University of Illinois Press, Urbana
Lewis, SK (1997) Attack of the killer tomatoes? Corporate liability for the international propagation of genetically altered agricultural products. Transnational Lawyer 10: 153
Macauley MK (1992) In Pursuit of a sustainable Space Environment: Economic Issues in Regulating Space Debris. Discussion Paper. Energy and Natural Resources Division, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
Mander J, Goldsmith E (1996) The Case Against the Global Economy. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco
Marks, LA, Freeze, B, Kalaitzandonakes, N (1999) The, AgBiotech Industry - A U.S.- Canadian Perspective. Can. J. Agri. Eco. 47: 419-435 CrossRef
Marks LA, Mooney S, Kalaitzandonakes N (2002) Quanti- fying scientific risk communications of agrobiotechnology. In Santaniello V, Evenson RE, Zilberman D, eds, Market Deve- lopment for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products. CABI Publishers
Martinez-Ramirez AC, Escriche B, Real MD, Silva FJ, Ferre J (1995) Inheritance of resistant Bacillus thuringiensis toxin in a field population of diamonback moth (Plutella xylostella). Pestic. Sci. 43: 115-120
Mooney, S, Klein, K (1999) Environmental concerns and risks of genetically modified crops: Economic contributions to the debate. Can. J. Agri. Eco. 47: 437-444 CrossRef
Perrings, C (1989) Environmental bonds and environmental research in innovative activities. Ecol. Eco. 1: 95-110 CrossRef
Ringleb, AH, Wiggins, SN (1990) Liability and large scale, long term hazards. J. Politic. Eco. 98: 574-595 CrossRef
Rissler J, Mellon M (1996). The Ecological Risks of Transgenic Crops. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Saat TAWM (1996) Out in the Open: Field Trials with Genetically Modified Crop Plants in Four Europen Countries, Chile and the United States. In Schmidt ER, Hankeln T, eds, Transgenic Organisms and Biosafety: Horizontal Gene Transfer, Stability of DNA, and Expression of Transgenes. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, New York
Sears, MK, Hellmich, RL, Stanley-Horn, DE, Oberhauser, KS, Pleasants, JM, Mattila, HR, Siegfried, BD, Dively, GP (2001) Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98: 11937-11942 CrossRef
Shavell, S (1984a) Liability for harm versus regulation of safety. J. Legal Stud. 13: 357-374 CrossRef
Shavell S (1984b) A model of the optimal use of liability and safety regulation. Rand J. Eco. 15
Shavell, S (1986) The judgment proof problem. Internat. Rev. Law Eco. 6: 45-58 CrossRef
Shelton, AM, Zhao, JZ, Roush, RT (2002) Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequenses of the development of Bt transgenic plants. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 47: 845-881 CrossRef
Shogren, JF, Herriges, JA, Govindasamy, R (1993) Limits to environmental bonds. Ecolo. Eco. 8: 109-133 CrossRef
Tabashnik, BE (1994) Evolution of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 39: 47-49 CrossRef
United States General Accounting Office (1988) Surface Mining: Cost and Availability of Reclamation Bonds. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office
Weersink, A, Livernois, J (1996) The use of economic instruments to resolve water quality problems from agriculture. Can. J. Agri. Eco. 44: 345-353 CrossRef
Weitzman, ML (1974) Prices vs. quantities. Rev. Eco. Stud. 41: 477-491 CrossRef
Zangerl, AR, McKenna, D, Wraight, CL, Carroll, M, Ficarello, P, Warner, R, Berenbaum, MR (2001) Effects of exposure to event 176 Bacillus thuringiensis corn pollen on monarch and black swallowtail caterpillars under field conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98: 11908-11912 CrossRef