Search results

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

Purpose – The chapter provides a comprehensive review of trade-related regulations of genetically modified (GM) food, identifies their main effects, and analyzes the main motivations behind their support.

Methodology/approach – The analysis is substantiated by (a) results from the literature on GM food regulations and (b) comparative statics results from a simplified three-country partial equilibrium welfare and political economic model.

Findings – The analysis shows that in a non-GM producing country, trade-related regulations will benefit producers, but not necessarily consumers. Producers' support is found to be instrumental to push for a ban, for information requirements on shipments, or for mandatory labeling of GM food products. Outside pressure groups will play the role of swing voters in cases where consumers and producers do not agree.

Research limitations/implications – The analytical model is based on simplifying assumptions on the groups and market effects of each regulation. Future research is needed to empirically validate some of the main results.

Originality/value of the chapter – The goal of the chapter is to inform economic and policy researchers on the effects of GM food trade-related regulations. The chapter provides an updated comprehensive overview of the key trade regulations of GM food. It uses a unique model to derive the main welfare effects of GM food regulations. By comparing the effects of GM food regulations in different types of countries for different pressure groups, the findings provide new insights in this area.

This chapter explores the development of advertising regulations governing food advertising to children in Australia since the 1940s. By introducing the advertising and marketing self-regulatory system, the Australian Government is taking a neoliberal approach, advocating for the free market to initiate and sustain the country’s economic development, instead of greater government regulation. By examining the primary and secondary literature, such as government reports and research, and newspaper and academic articles, this chapter outlines different regulatory initiatives adopted by both the government and food industry to limit food and beverage advertising to children on television and online, in order to prevent obesity rates increasing in children. This chapter synthesizes and critically evaluates food industry and public health studies, government and non-government reviews, and other research studies to evaluate the influence of self-regulation on Australian television food advertising within the neoliberal context since the 1990s. It contributes to the literature on food advertising regulations for children in Australia by offering evidence of how the government, public health authorities and the food industry have attempted to keep pace with changes in the advertising, marketing and media industries by developing and reviewing advertising codes. It identifies the loopholes that exist in these self-regulatory codes and concludes that Australia’s current advertising regulatory arrangements are failing to protect our children from unhealthy food marketing on television, especially on relatively under-regulated online platforms such as social media and branded websites. The issues identified in this chapter could aid the food and beverage industry, as well as the self-regulatory system, to offer comprehensive and applicable solutions to combat Australia’s obesity crises by implementing new legislations that align with different marketing practices.

New Zealand and Australian agri-food industries are being restructured both as a consequence of the extension of neoliberal policy settings and as a result of the increasing influence of the global supermarket sector. In the EU, supermarkets have sought to standardise and harmonise compliance, with their influence being felt well beyond European boundaries. EurepGAP (a European standard for ‘Good Agricultural Practices’) is an example of an emerging ‘audit culture’ where strict adherence to set rules of operation emerges as the basis for accreditation of goods and services. It represents the trend towards private sector standardization and assurance schemes, and provides an example of the growing importance of the supermarket sector in sanctioning the on-ground activities that occur in the production and processing of farm-derived outputs.

This chapter highlights the influence of EurepGAP protocols in the reorganisation of the agri-food industries of New Zealand and Australia. It argues that – for industries such as vegetable and fruit production, where Europe is the final destination – compliance with EurepGAP standards has largely become essential. In this sense, EurepGAP has emerged as the standard among producers who wish to export their products. The chapter concludes with an assessment of EurepGAP as a form of global agri-food governance that demonstrates a strong relationship between new audit cultures and neoliberal forms of trade regulation. In both Australia and New Zealand, some production sectors have rapidly adopted EurepGAP – despite extra costs, reduced choices over crop management and a lingering sense of resentment at the internal imposition of yet another production audit – primarily as a solution to the politics of risk in the context of high levels of exposure to market requirements under neoliberalism. The implications of this for Antipodean farming are considered in detail.

Purpose – The chapter examines the international welfare effects of biotech crop adoption, based on a transversal literature review and a case study of the introduction of genetically modified (GM) food crops in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines.

Methodology/approach – The analysis is based on (a) a review of lessons from the applied economic literature and (b) simulations using an improved multimarket, multicountry, computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, calibrated with productivity hypotheses formulated with local scientists in the four Asian countries.

Findings – Results from the analysis show that, in the absence of trade-related regulations, GM crop adoption generates economic gains for adopting countries and importing non-adopters, that domestic regulations at adopters and especially non-adopters can reduce these gains, and that import regulations in other countries can also affect gains for exporting adopters. The case study illustrates these conclusions, but it also shows that net importers will mostly benefit from adoption in their terms of trade, and that segregation of non-GM crops for export markets can be beneficial if it is not too costly.

Research limitations/implications – The use of a CGE model allows for accounting for cross-sectoral effects, and for regulations affecting bilateral trade flows, but it also has a number of limitations. The model used here, like the ones used in the other papers in the literature, is static, based on an aggregated representation of the global economy (GTAP database), and assumes perfect competition. This means that the absolute results of each scenario may not perfectly represent the actual welfare effects engendered by the adoption of biotech crops. Still, what matters here is the comparison of the relative welfare effects across countries and scenarios. The simulations are also done ex-ante, so, even if the model here was calibrated with country-based data, the results do depend on hypothetical assumptions about the performance of the selected technologies.

Originality/value of the paper – The chapter aims to illustrate the welfare effects generated by GM crops for adopters, non-adopters, in a segmented and regulated international market. Unlike other papers, the review section provides key transversal lessons from the literature, accounting for results from both partial equilibrium and CGE model studies. The empirical application focuses on four populous Asian countries that have been largely left out of the literature. The model used in the simulation presents a number of improvement from the CGE literature on GM crops, including partial adoption, factor-biased productivity shock in each adopting country, GM labeling regulations modeled as trade filters, and the inclusion of costly non-GM segregation as observed in the international market.

Recent literature on firm-level heterogeneity and trade has emphasized a self-selection mechanism: only the most productive firms can recover the transaction (sunk) costs for serving foreign markets and become exporters. The role of trade integration is that a productivity gap between exporters and nonexporters becomes lower when the market becomes more integrated due to a fall in trade costs. The focus of this chapter is the role of EU harmonization of food regulations in explaining the intra-EU export-productivity premium. The food industry is an interesting case to examine because many directives and regulations of the Single Market Program concern this important economic sector and have the potential to affect trade and productivity. We use data on Dutch food processing firms for the 1979–2005 period, which we link with a dataset that codes food products subject to EU harmonization. The chapter confirms that more productive firms are more likely to enter the EU export market. The result of EU harmonization is that this probability increases. Second, we find a positive and significant export-productivity premium: that is, firms that export to other EU markets are more productive than nonexporting firms. This finding is robust to the estimation technique and the way we measured TFP growth. Third, when we test whether the export-productivity premium is affected by EU harmonization, we find weak evidence that is the case for Dutch food processing firms: much depends on the estimation method, the way we measure TFP growth, and the population of exporting firms.

Over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in interest about fraud in food supply chain. Victims of food fraud and counterfeiting can be different actors in the supply chain: distributors, retailers and, most importantly, customers. Victims of food fraud face not only economic losses, but also health and safety risks when handling or consuming fraudulent products. The aim of this paper is to present the situation regarding counterfeiting and fraud in the food supply chain from a theoretical and practical point of view. The attitudes and opinions of consumers, experts in the field and retailers on the occurrence of food fraud and counterfeiting were explored. The results of an online survey of 326 consumers in Croatia showed that their awareness of food fraud is low. Most of them are only partially familiar with food fraud or do not know anything about this issue. The respondents are most familiar with mislabelling of organic products, meat packaging date fraud, and misuse of geographical indications (PDO/PGI). Consumers have low trust in all organisations that should protect them from food fraud (e.g. Croatian national institutions and authorities). A survey with eight food experts (olive oil, wine, milk and dairy products, honey, strong alcoholic beverages) found that they very rarely encounter food fraud in their work, usually two or more times a year. Retailers are aware of the existence of food fraud, but still do not take measures beyond the usual level in their quality assurance systems. To raise awareness of food fraud, education of all stakeholders by relevant institutions is needed.

The application of modern biotechnology to crop and food production is one of the most significant technological advances to impact modern agriculture. Barely a dozen years since their introduction, genetically modified (GM) crops are currently grown on more than 300 million acres worldwide. GM (or transgenic) crops are produced using plant biotechnology to select desirable characteristics in plants and transfer genes from one organism to another. As a result, crops can survive under harsher conditions, costs are lowered, and yields are improved. Scientists are introducing genes into plants that will give the plants resistance to herbicides, insects, disease, drought, and salt in the soil. Crop research in bioengineering is also aimed at improving the nutritional quality of food, such as providing healthier vegetable oils. Pharmaceutical and industrial crops (or “pharma” crops) are also on the horizon, with the potential to dramatically reduce drug production costs. Compared to traditional plant breeding, biotechnology can produce new varieties of plants more quickly and efficiently, and it can introduce desirable traits into plants that could not be established through conventional plant breeding techniques.

As social movements engage in transnational legal processes, they have articulated innovative rights claims outside the nation-state frame. This chapter analyzes emerging practices of legal mobilization in response to global governance through a case study of the “right to food sovereignty.” The claim of food sovereignty has been mobilized transnationally by small-scale food producers, food-chain workers, and the food insecure to oppose the liberalization of food and agriculture. The author analyzes the formation of this claim in relation to the rise of a “network imaginary” of global governance. By drawing on ethnographic research, the author shows how activists have internalized this imaginary within their claims and practices of legal mobilization. In doing so, the author argues, transnational food sovereignty activists co-constitute global food governance from below. Ultimately, the development of these practices in response to shifting forms of transnational legality reflects the enduring, mutually constitutive relationship between law and social movements on a global scale.