Economic impact of GM hysteria on EU feed market
Open accessAbstract
A growing world population coupled with changing diet is projected to increase demand for food production by 70% by 2050. Helping farmers lose less of their crops will be a key factor in promoting food security. In addition to pesticides GM crops will continue to be a vital tool in the diverse range of technologies that can maintain and improve living standards for the people of the world. The EU is dependent for 65% on imports of protein-rich feedstuffs for which there are no substitutes in the short term. The EU livestock sector uses imported soybean, soybean meal and maize by-products as animal feed. Without an adequate supply of these feed ingredients, the EU’s livestock production will loose competitiveness. However, demands from the EU differ to those from third countries with respect to the GM varieties grown, and what are authorised for import into the EU. The risk that supplies of soya products and maize by-products could be affected by the low-level presence of non-EU approved GM material has not been fully resolved as the EU has allowed just a 0.1% tolerance for this plus 0.05% tolerance for measuring uncertainty. This could cause supply problems for the animal feed industry, and ultimately supply of food to consumers. The importance of the EU market and EU requirements for the major soybean and maize exporter countries is declining over time and it is becoming increasingly difficult and costly to maintain a non-GM supply chain in the EU. Food companies and supermarkets will struggle to stay GM-free. EU member states dependent on imports will be forced to deal with more GM presence in their chain. Market forces are forcing governments to authorize products more efficiently, develop tolerance policies or tolerate unapproved varieties in their imports.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The EU imports 65% of its protein-rich feedstuffs, for which there are no alternative sources grown in the EU.
“The EU imports 65% of its protein-rich feedstuffs, for which there are no alternative sources grown in the EU (Popp et al., 2013), and is the largest importer of soybean meal and the second largest importer of soybeans after China (Fig. 4 and 5).”
From Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations1 (2014) · cites this paper as Popp et al., 2013
In 2013, 4 major United Kingdom food supermarket groups-Tesco, Cooperative, Marks and Spencer, and Sainsbury's-ceased requiring that poultry and egg suppliers use only non-GE feed.
“In 2013, 4 major United Kingdom food supermarket groups-Tesco, Cooperative, Marks and Spencer, and Sainsbury's-ceased requiring that poultry and egg suppliers use only non-GE feed (Popp et al., 2013).”
From Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations1 (2014) · cites this paper as Popp et al., 2013
As global production of GE feed crops continues to rise, the EU's stringent GE tolerance levels (0.9% GE material limit plus 0.05% measuring uncertainty tolerance) and zero tolerance for unapproved events are complicating the maintenance of non-GE supply chains.
“As the global production of GE feed crops continues to rise, the EU's stringent GE tolerance levels (0.9% GE material limit plus 0.05% measuring uncertainty tolerance) and zero tolerance for unapproved events are complicating the maintenance of non-GE supply chains (Popp et al., 2013).”
From Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations1 (2014) · cites this paper as Popp et al., 2013
In 2007, asynchronous approval of a GE corn variety approved for cultivation in Argentina but unapproved for food and feed use in the EU concentrated demand on corn grown in Brazil, which increased prices an estimated €50/million t for compound feed producers in the EU.
“Similarly, in 2007 there was a problem with asynchronous approval of a GE corn variety approved for cultivation in Argentina but unapproved for food and feed use in the EU. This concentrated demand on corn grown in Brazil, which in -creased prices an estimated €50/million t for compound feed producers in the EU (Popp et al., 2013).”
From Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations1 (2014) · cites this paper as Popp et al., 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
OERKE, E.-C. (2006) · The Journal of Agricultural Science · doi:10.1017/s0021859605005708 · Cited by 5,283 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Globally, an average of 35% of potential crop yield is lost to pre-harvest pests [2].”
Background(2011) · FAO eBooks · Cited by 3,368 · see citing works
Pesticide productivity and food security. A review
Popp, J., Pető, K., & Nagy, J. (2012) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-012-0105-x · Cited by 1,250 · see citing works
Cost-benefit analysis of crop protection measures
Popp, J. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety · doi:10.1007/s00003-011-0677-4 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Study on the Implications of Asynchronous GMO Approvals for EU Imports of Animal Feed Products
Nowicki, P., Aramyan, L. H., Baltussen, W. H. M., Dvortsin, L., Jongeneel, R. A., Domínguez, I. P., van Wagenberg, C. P. A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Kaufman, J., Miller, D. R., et al. (2010) · Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Toepfer International, "The EU Feed Market in Febru- ary," Market Review February 2013, Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH, Hamburg, 2013.
- Toepfer International, "Market Review April 2012," Al- fred C. Toepfer International GmbH, Hamburg, 2012.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations1
Van Eenennaam, A. L., & Young, A. E. (2014) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/jas.2014-8124 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
“In 2013, 4 major United Kingdom food supermarket groups—Tesco, Cooperative, Marks and Spencer, and Sainsbury’s—ceased requiring that poultry and egg suppliers use only non-GE feed (Popp et al., 2013).”
BackgroundInfluentialBurns, A. M., Lawlor, P. G., Gardiner, G. E., McCabe, E. M., Walsh, D., Mohammed, M., Grant, J., & Duffy, G. (2015) · Preventive Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.07.002 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Anyshchenko, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2022.897643 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Carry-over of DNA from genetically modified soyabean and maize to cow’s milk
Giacomo, M. D., Domenicantonio, C. D., Santis, B. D., Debegnach, F., Onori, R., & Brera, C. (2016) · Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences · doi:10.22358/jafs/65570/2016 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“The fact that 80% of the world’s soya is now modified, makes the access to non-GM soya at a reasonable cost very difficult (Popp et al., 2013).”
BackgroundThe distortion in the EU feed market due to import constraints on genetically modified soy
Basnet, S. K., Ghosh, R., Eriksson, M., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2023) · Agricultural and Food Economics · doi:10.1186/s40100-023-00290-7 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“As markets for soy are also quickly emerging in China and India, EU food companies and supermarkets have been lobbying for relaxation of the current GM restrictions (Popp et al. 2013).”
BackgroundAssessing and managing the risk posed by Salmonella in pig feed
Burns, A., Gardiner, G. E., Duffy, G., & Lawlor, P. G. (2015) · SETU Waterford Libraries - Open Access Repository · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Sieradzki, Z., Mazur, M., Król, B., & Kwiatek, K. (2017) · Medycyna Weterynaryjna · doi:10.21521/mw.5691 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Popp, J., Pető, K., Magda, R., & Lakner, Z.
- Affiliations
- University of Debrecen (HU)
- Károly Róbert University College (HU)
- Corvinus University of Budapest (HU)
- Venue
- American Journal of Plant Sciences
- Publisher
- Scientific Research Publishing, Inc.
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 04
- Issue
- 08
- Pages
- 1547-1553
- ISSN
- 2158-2742 (ISSN-L)
- 2158-2750
- OpenAlex
- W2056752156
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Plant Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- University of Debrecen Electronic Archive (University of Debrecen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economics of Agriculture and Food Markets
- Keywords
- genetically modified crops, animal feed, soybean meal, maize by-products, animal husbandry, food security
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
