On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations: Reply

• Published in: Food policy Vol. 35; no. 2; pp. 183 - 184
• Main Authors: Demont, Matty, Dillen, Koen, Daems, Wim, Sausse, Christophe, Tollens, Eric, Mathijs, Erik
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Kidlington Elsevier Ltd 01-04-2010; Elsevier; Elsevier Science Ltd
• Series: Food Policy
• Subjects: Agricultural policy; Biotechnology; Consumer; Consumers; Control; Crops; Economic policy; Economics; Europe; European Union; European Union Biotechnology Policy analysis Flexibility Consumer Welfare; Farms; Flexibility; Foods; Genetically altered foods; Genetically modified organisms; International trade; Markets; Policies; Policy analysis; Regulation; Welfare; Europe; Biotechnology; Consumer; European Union; Welfare; Flexibility; Policy analysis
• ISSN: 0306-9192; 1873-5657
• DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.03.001

Desquilbet and Bullock (2010) criticize some aspects of our analysis of the European Union’s (EU) spatial
ex ante coexistence regulations (SEACERs) of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops presented in
Demont et al. (2009). We argue that, besides misinterpreting some of our original arguments, the authors propose a policy analysis framework which is inconsistent with the main goal of the EU’s SEACERs. Their example incorrectly suggests that SEACERs play an additional role of regulating non-GM crop supply on the market. This would be inefficient from a policy economics perspective, especially in an open economy where global trade is taken into account. Therefore, we argue that analyzing flexibility of SEACERs in a market framework could lead to erroneous conclusions and in that case a simple farm level analysis such as presented in
Demont et al. (2009) is preferred.