-1679476342.png){kind=logo}
No Access
The perils of zero tolerance: technology management, supply chains and thwarted globalisation
Abstract
Tolerance levels exist for many undesirable attributes in food for which there exists general consensus regarding the potential food safety hazard: insect fragments, stones, livestock antibiotics, chemical residues, weed seeds, etc. Yet much of the current debate about zero tolerance relates to the presence of genetically modified (GM) material, with far less consensus regarding the acceptance of traces of GM material and the role of science and technology as the arbiter of a safety threshold. The result has been international trade disruptions, and increased complexity in supply chain relationships. Embedded in zero tolerance standards for GM material are divergent perceptions encompassing what constitutes high and low quality and an extension of the use of zero tolerance requirements beyond food safety to encompass different notions of food quality. Against this background, the paper examines the drivers and implications of zero tolerance standards for GM material for supply chains and international trade.
Keywords
References
- 1. (2010).
‘Ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability under uncertainty and irreversibility: governing the coexistence of GM crops’.
Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal.
(accessed 17 July 2013) , 4, 2010-9, [online] http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/journalarticles/2010-9 Google Scholar - 2. (2001). ‘Advanta: worldwide challenges’. AgBioForum. 4, 1, 34-39 Google Scholar
- 3. (2003).
‘Indirect effects of pesticide regulation and the food quality protection act’.
Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues.
(accessed 17 September 2012) , 4, 73-79, [online] http://caes.usask.ca/cafri/search/archive/2003-cash4-1.pdf Google Scholar - 4. (2010).
Sampling and Testing Protocol for Canadian Flaxseed Exported to the European Union.
(accessed 10 August 2012) , Winnipeg:Canadian Grain Commission , [online] http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/gmflax-lingm/stpf-peevl-eng.htm Google Scholar - 5. (2008). ‘Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy’. Food Policy. 33, 99-111 Google Scholar
- 6. (2011).
The European Union Policy of Zero Tolerance: Insights from the Discovery of CDC Triffid.
(accessed 20 August 2012) , Saskatoon, Canada:University of Saskatchewan , Unpublished MSc thesis, [online] http://library2.usask.ca/theses/available/etd-06272011-111926/unrestricted/BuwaniDayanandaMScThesis.pdf Google Scholar - 7. GMOs in a Nutshell.
(accessed 14 July 2012) , (n.d.), [online] http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/qanda/c4_en.htm#c Google Scholar - 8. (2001). The Economics of Biotechnology. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar Google Scholar
- 9. ‘Triffid: a year later’.
presented at Flax Day 2011.
2011,
01,
10,
(accessed 15 July 2012) , Saskatoon, SK, Canada:Flax Council of Canada , [online] http://www.saskflax.com/PDFs/2011/2011_BarryHall.pps Google Scholar - 10. (1998). ‘Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology’. AgBioForum. 1, 1, 3-7 Google Scholar
- 11. , Robinson, R.K. Batt, C.A. Patel, P. (1999). ‘Costs/benefits of microbial origin’. Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology. London:Academic Press , 480-486 Google Scholar
- 12. (1999). ‘Genetically modified foods: consumer issues and the role of information asymmetry’. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 47, 4, 445-455 Google Scholar
- 13. (2001). ‘Identity preservation and international trade: signalling quality across national boundaries’. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 49, 4, 567-579 Google Scholar
- 14. (2000). ‘Cost implications of alternative GM tolerance levels: non-genetically modified wheat in western Canada’. Agbioforum. 6, 4, 169-177 Google Scholar
- 15. (2002). Agricultural Biotechnology and Transatlantic Trade: Regulatory Barriers to GM Crops. Wallingford:CABI Publishing Google Scholar
- 16. , Falkner, R. (2007). ‘The Biosafety Protocol and the WTO: concert or conflict’. The International Politics of Genetically Modified Food. Houndmills:Palgrave Macmillan , 195-212 Google Scholar
- 17. (2002).
‘Unauthorised material in GM crop trials’.
News Release.
(accessed 4 September 2011) , [online] http://openscotland.net/News/Releases/2002/08/2066 Google Scholar - 18. (2002). ‘Competitors co-operating: establishing a supply chain to manage genetically modified canola’. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 4, 1, 51-66 Google Scholar
- 19. (2002). ‘Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops’. Nature Biotechnology. 20, 537-541 Google Scholar
- 20. (2010).
‘Risk management studies: the European Union perspective’.
presentation at the Canada Grains Council 41st Annual Meeting ,19 April ,Winnipeg, Canada Google Scholar - 21. (2011).
Flax Testing Results – A Positive Outcome Due to Producers’ Efforts.
(accessed 11 January 2012) , Regina:Government of Saskatchewan , [online] http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/avg1107_pg5 Google Scholar - 22. (2000).
‘Impact of identity preservation of non-GMO crops on the grain market system’.
Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues.
(accessed 7 August 2012) , 1, 29-36, [online] http://caes.usask.ca/cafri/search/archive/2000-vandenburg.pdf Google Scholar - 23. (2011a).
Post Moratorium EU Regulation of Genetically Modified Products – Triffid Flax.
(accessed 12 September 2012) , Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy and Competitiveness Research Network,CATPRN Commissioned Paper, No. 2011-03 , [online] http://www.uoguelph.ca/catprn/PDF-CP/CP2011-03-viju-yeung-kerr.pdf Google Scholar - 24. (2011b).
Post-Moratorium EU Regulation of Genetically Modified Products: Trade Concerns.
(accessed 8 September 2012) , Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy and Competitiveness Research Network,CATPRN Commissioned Paper, No. 2011-02 , [online] http://www.uoguelph.ca/catprn/PDF-CP/CP-2011-02-Viju.pdf Google Scholar - 25. (1998). ‘Agricultural biotechnology: why do Europeans have difficulty accepting it?’. AgBioForum. 1, 1, 8-13 Google Scholar
