The economics of biosafety: implications for biotechnology in developing countries

There is a growing body of literature on the safe use of biotechnology and the need for an international biosafety protocol and national regulations to facilitate the safe development and transfer of biotechnology. Most of these studies, however, address the issue of biosafety from a scientific, legal, environmental and organizational perspective. The purpose of this paper is to add to this discussion by providing an economic perspective on regulating products of agricultural biotechnology, with special emphasis on implications for developing countries who are under increasing pressure to put a biosafety framework in place. The paper provides a brief discussion on the economic rationale for biosafety regulations, explains the economic benefits and costs of biosafety, and discusses the appropriate form of biosafety policy and the effects of regulation on resource allocation. The benefits of biosafety discussed include - the reduction of possible human and environmental risks of biotechnology products and "accident" costs to the society; increased predictability for a research organization of the expected time and money to get a new product on the market; making the products of biotechnology accessible to a country; and the provision of certainty and stability to the social framework, necessary for the development of biotechnology research and development activities. Developing countries should balance these potential benefits with the tangible costs of biosafety regulation to the biotechnology organizations and the society. To a biotechnology organization, biosafety will increase the research lag, production costs, transaction costs and marketing costs. Given the scarcity of human and physical resources, setting up a biosafety system also poses opportunity costs to the society. The following issues need careful examination in designing a biosafety policy in a developing country: the goal of biosafety policy; the appropriate means of controlling risk; the impact of biosafety on scientific development and private investments; the impact of biosafety on the international transfer of technology and international trade; the incidence of biosafety costs; and the size of biosafety system.

MoreLess

Year of publication:	1998-04
Authors:	Maredia, Mywish K.
Publisher:	Biostrategy Associates
Subject:	Biosafety \| economic aspects \| developing countries \| agriculture \| biotechnology \| research \| Microbiology

freely available

Full text |

More access options

In German libraries (KVK)

I need help

More details

Type of publication:	Journal
Language:	English
Notes:	Betz, F., Levin, M., and Rogul, M. 1983. Safety aspects of genetically- engineered microbial pesticides. Recombinant DNA Technology Bulletin 6:135-41.; Brill, W. 1985. Safety concerns and genetic engineering in agriculture. Science 227:381-84.; Crawford, M. 1990. Biotech companies lobby for federal regulation. Science 248:546-547.; Davis, B. 1987. Bacterial domestication: Underlying assumptions. Science 235:1332-35; De Kathen, Andre. 1997. Biotechnology, Biosafety and Impact Assessment: Field Trials of Transgenic Crops in Developing Countries. BioSafety vol. 3, Paper 4 (BY97004), URL - http://www.bdt.org.br/bioline/by.; Fleisher, B. 1989. The Evolving biotechnology industry and its effects on farming. In: USDA Agriculture Food Policy Review. Chapter 20, pp. 333- 351.; Larson, B.A. and Knudson, M.K. 1991. Public regulation of agricultural biotechnology field tests: Economic implications of alternative approaches. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 1074-1082.; Lesser, W. and Maloney, A.P. 1993. Biosafety: A Report on Regulatory Approaches for the Deliberate Release of Genetically-Engineered Organisms - Issues and Options for Developing Countries. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development.; Maredia, M.K., Ward, R. and Byerlee, D. 1996. Econometric Estimation of a Global Spillover Matrix for Wheat Varietal Technology. Agricultural Economics 14: 159-173.; Miller, H.I. 1991. Regulation. In: B.D. Davis (ed.) The Genetic Revolution pp.196-211. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.; OECD. 1992. Safety Considerations for Biotechnology - 1992. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.; OTA. 1988. Field-Testing Engineered Organisms: Genetic and Ecological Issues. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co., Inc.; Persley, G.J., Giddings, L.V. and Juma, C. 1992. Biosafety: The Safe Application of Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Environment. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.; Persley, G.J. 1990. Beyond Mendel's Garden: Biotechnology in the Service of World Agriculture. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.; Samuels, W.J. 1981. Normative premises in regulatory theory. In: Warren J. Samuels and A. Allan Schmid (eds.) Law and Economics: An Institutional Perspective. pp. 128-144. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.; Schneider, K. 1993. Science Group Urges a Delay in Selling Gene-Altered Food. The New York Times December 21, 1993, pp. A10.; Schneiderman, H.A. 1985. Genetic engineering in agriculture - will it pay? Reprint remarks to the Ohio Grain and Feed Association and Ohio Fertilizer and Pesticide Association, OhioAgroExpo, St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Company.; Segerson, K. 1986. Risk sharing in the design of environmental policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68: 1261-1265.; Stigler, G.J. 1971. The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics & Management Science, 2: 3-21.; Szybalski, W. 1985. Genetic engineering in agriculture. Science 229: 112- 113.; Virgin, Ivar. 1997. Field Testing and Commercialisation of Genetically Modified Plants in Developing Countries -- Biosafety Aspects. BioSafety vol. 3, Paper 3 (BY97003), URL - http://www.bdt.org.br/bioline/by. ; Wittman, D. 1977. Prior regulation versus post liability: The choice between input and output monitoring. Journal of Legal Studies 6: 193-221.
Source:	BASE

Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10009455350