The Quandary of Agricultural Biotechnology, Pure Economic Loss, and Non-Adopters: Comparing Australia, Canada, and the United States

44 Pages Posted: 19 Sep 2012

See all articles by Karinne Ludlow

Karinne Ludlow

Monash University - Faculty of Law

Stuart Smyth

University of Saskatchewan

Date Written: 2011

Abstract

Innovations impact societies in a variety of ways. Successful innovations are utility enhancing, in that they create a higher degree of benefits that offset any of the potential disadvantages of the innovation. Unsuccessful innovations suffer from the reverse, in that they result in more disadvantages than benefits and therefore, are ultimately rejected by society. The innovation of agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) crops has triggered substantial discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the technology. Numerous financial and economic benefits are starting to be recognized by adopters, but some non-adopters are growing increasingly concerned about their ability to profit given the high levels of GM crop adoption. While some might argue that non-adopters of GM crops are the conventional economic losers of this innovation, the reality is that demand for non-GM products is higher, in large part, because of consumer desires to avoid GM food products. The concept of pure economic loss in relation to innovation posits that those negatively impacted by the innovation of GM crops are entitled to compensation that offsets the externality. In undertaking a thorough assessment of pure economic loss and GM crops, this article evaluates the logic for, and efficiencies of, having compensation funded via the use of courts versus government regulations. This article considers whether non-adopter rights are developing in the case of GM crops and what governance response mechanism is best suited to those claims. It is concluded that the decision over whether to support or reject an innovation is too important to the larger society as a whole to be decided by the courts.

Keywords: innovation, agricultural biotechnology, law, compensation, government regulation, non-adopter rights

JEL Classification: K00, K10, K19, K20, K29, K23, K30, K39, K32, K40, K49

Suggested Citation

Ludlow, Karinne and Smyth, Stuart, The Quandary of Agricultural Biotechnology, Pure Economic Loss, and Non-Adopters: Comparing Australia, Canada, and the United States (2011). Jurimetrics, Vol. 52, No. 1, 2011; Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 26. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2148830 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2148830

Karinne Ludlow (Contact Author)

Monash University - Faculty of Law ( email )

Wellington Road
Clayton, Victoria 3800
Australia

Stuart Smyth

University of Saskatchewan ( email )

College of Education
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A7
Canada

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
76
Abstract Views
749
rank
329,408
PlumX Metrics