Systematic Review
Protocol:
“What is the impact of trade
restrictions of GM products in
different countries on the
competitiveness of different partner
countries and corresponding sectors
in comparison to a situation where
there are no restrictions on GM
trade?”
Kristine Van Hercka,b and Maria Garroneb
[email protected]
[email protected]
CEPS, Centre for European Policy Studies,
Place du Congrès 1, B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
a
b
LICOS, Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KULeuven
Waaistraat 6 Bus 3511, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)
Corresponding author:
Kristine Van Herck
LICOS, KULeuven
Waaistraat 6
Bus 3511, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)
[email protected]
Title of the review:
What is the impact of trade restrictions of GM products in different countries (I) on the
competitiveness (O) of different partner countries and corresponding sectors (P) in
comparison to a situation where there are no restrictions on GM trade (C)?
Abstract:
Background: In 2013, almost two decades after the introduction of the first GM crops,
the use of GM technology in commercial agriculture is still surrounded by controversy.
One controversial issue in the discussion on the socioeconomic impact of agricultural
biotechnology is the heterogeneity of different regulations governing trade and
commercialization of GM products and its economic implications. However, to our
knowledge no systematic review has been carried out to date in this research area.
Differences in GM regulation result in market fragmentation and pose important
challenges for the international trading regime. There are three strands in the literature
that have examined the relationship between GM regulations, trade and
competitiveness. First, there are a number of studies that analyze the impact of early
adoption of GM crops on trade and competiveness. Second, there are studies that
examine the implications of trade restrictions on competitiveness. Finally, there are
studies that analyze the impact that GM trade regulation in developed countries has on
the GM policy and competitiveness in developing countries.
Methods/Design: We have identified the data sources to be taken in account and
identified inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of relevant studies. These
inclusion and exclusion criteria will be applied to (A) titles and abstracts, and (B) full
text during the literature screening process. Then we will assess the risk of bias in the
included studies due to poor designing, implementing and/or reporting. To reduce this
bias, we will rank the included studies according to risk of bias or quality. Finally, we
will present the results of the included studies qualitatively and – if data are available –
we will carry out a meta-analysis
Key words:
Systematic review, genetically modified crops, trade, competitiveness, trade restrictions
1
Table of Contents
1.
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.
OBJECTIVES OF THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW .................................................................... 7
3.
METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1. Search strategy ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Criteria for including studies in the review ...............................................................13
3.3. Selection of studies..............................................................................................................15
3.4. Potential effect modifiers and reason for heterogeneity .....................................16
3.5. Assessment of risk of bias in included studies .........................................................16
3.6. Data extraction strategy ....................................................................................................18
3.7. Data Synthesis .......................................................................................................................18
4.
TIMELINE ................................................................................................................................. 19
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................... 20
6.
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 20
7.
APPENDIX 1: Appraisal form ............................................................................................ 21
8.
APPENDIX 2: Coding form .................................................................................................. 25
9.
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 29
2
1. BACKGROUND
Since the first development of genetic modified (GM) crops in 1994, there has been a
dramatic increase in GM crop adoption and by 2012 the global GM planted area was
170.3 million hectares. In 2012, around 17.3 million farmers in 28 countries adopted
biotech crops. The United States (US) had the largest share of global GM crop plantings
in 2012, with 69.5 million hectares which account for more than 40% of the total GM
planted area. The US was followed by Brazil with 36.6 million hectares (accounting for
21% of total cultivated area). The other main countries planting GM crops in 2012 were
Argentina, India, Canada and China. At present, almost all of the global GM crop area
derives from soybeans, maize/corn, cotton and canola (Clive 2012).
In 2013, almost two decades after the introduction of the first GM crops, the use of GM
technology in commercial agriculture is still surrounded by much controversy. The
socio-economic impacts of GM crops and their derived products have been intensively
studied, both in countries where GM cultivation is allowed as well as in countries where
GM crops are not allowed for cultivation. Proponents of GM technology argue that the
use of GM technology can increase productivity, reduce pesticide use, and improve the
nutritional quality of food. Opponents, however, worry that some producers will be
excluded from the value chain.
One important controversial issue in the discussion on the socioeconomic impact of
agricultural biotechnology is the heterogeneity of different regulations governing trade
and commercialization of GM products and its economic implications. Despite the
importance, to our knowledge no systematic review has been carried out to date in this
research area.
3
This systematic review will focus on the impact of GM regulations governing trade and
commercialization of GM products and its economic implications for competiveness. For
the selection of this specific review question, the authors have taken in account the
results of an interactive stakeholder consultation. An online survey, circulated to the
GRACE stakeholders revealed that the impact of GM regulations governing trade and
commercialization of GM products and its economic implications for competiveness was
considered to be important by the GRACE stakeholders.
Definition of Competitiveness
Although in the economic literature a precise definition and measure of competitiveness
are often lacking, competitiveness can be broadly defined as the ability to face
competition and to be successful when facing competition (e.g. Sharples, 1990; Ahearn
et al., 1990). Competitiveness can be related to competition on domestic markets, i.e.
firms and sectors competing within a country, or internationally, i.e. comparison
between countries.
Assessment of competitiveness can be carried out by focusing on structure and strategy
of a firm, sector or country depending on the level of investigation. In this respect,
competitiveness is measured by various economic performance indicators such as cost
of production, profitability, efficiency and productivity, where the latter two are
generally considered to be the most important ones (European Commission, 2009;
Latruffe, 2010). In addition, measures of export competiveness will be considered in this
systematic review as the review question relates to trade.
4
GM regulation
Trade regulations with regard to GM crops are monitored by the World Trade
Organization (WTO). Under WTO rules, the product process is not ground for trade
restrictions provided that the product in itself is in line with the international standard
guidelines on food safety, animal and plant health.1 As a result, under the WTO rules, a
country is not allowed to impose an import ban on GM crops. However, other regulation,
such as on labelling, is allowed.
There is a large heterogeneity in GM regulations among countries (Otsuka, 2003; Vigani
et al., 2010). However, in general three major groups of countries can be distinguished
(Zarrilli 2005). In the first group, countries or regions like Japan and the EU apply a
stringent regulatory framework to GM food on the basis of the precautionary principle.
These countries have set up a system of mandatory safety approval and mandatory
labelling. The regulatory procedure can depend on product characteristics (the presence
or absence of GM ingredients) or on the production process (regulating any products
derived from GM crops). In the second group, countries like the US and Argentina have
adopted a more pragmatic regulatory approach based on the notion of substantial
equivalence with voluntary labelling for GM food. Finally, there is a large group of
countries either without regulations or pending towards adopting certain regulations on
GM food approval and marketing (Gruère, 2006).
1The
Codex Alimentarius Commission for food safety, the International Office of Epizootics for animal
health and the IPPC for plant health.
5
Link between competitiveness and GM regulation
Differences in GM regulation result in market fragmentation and pose important
challenges for the international trading regime (Isaac et al., 2004).
In general, the early adopters, such as the US, are found to capture most of the welfare
gains from the early adoption of the GM technology (Moschini et al., 2000). However,
Nielsen et al. (2001) find that world market segmentation may lead to uncertain
conditions in the long term, especially for the early adopters with large overseas
markets. There are also studies that find negative trade impacts of the introduction of
GMO (Taylor et al., 2003; Furtan et. al., 2005) as it could lead to the creation a market for
“lemons”, resulting in the loss of export markets.
In addition to studies that analyzed the impact of early adoption on trade and
competiveness, there are also several studies that have examined the implications of
trade restrictions. One trade restriction that received much attention after the complaint
that the US, Canada and Argentina launched in 2003 at the WTO is the EU’s de facto
moratorium on GM crops (Anderson et al., 2012). Cadot et al. (2001) find that there
were no repercussions of the EU de facto moratorium on the US export of corn seeds.
However, they did find a negative effect with respect to other types of corn, suggesting
that downstream traders’ and food retailers’ private decisions of not purchasing GM
products were more important than the trade restrictions imposed by the EU. Contrary
to the findings of Cadot et al. (2001), Disdier and Fontagné (2008), have recently,
showed that the EU moratorium, as well as other European GM regulations, had negative
trade effects on the exporting countries.
6
The impact of different GM trade regimes is of particular importance for the agri-food
sectors in developing countries. The discrepancy in regulatory policies relating to GM
trade regulation among developed countries may create uncertain market conditions for
developing countries (Otsuka, 2003). Several authors have pointed out that the
stringency of the GM regulations of large importing countries, such as the EU or Japan
could represent a serious problem for the developing country’ strategy concerning GMO
production and regulations as these countries have to make the trade-off between the
expected agronomic benefit from GM crops and the potential loss of access to rich
markets with strong consumer opposition to GM products (see, e.g., Tothova and
Oehmke, 2004; Anderson and Jackson, 2004; Gruère et al., 2007).
The heterogeneity of these studies makes it difficult to have a clear overview of the
impacts. The diversity of studies points to the need to apply a systematic, structured and
transparent approach in selecting and assessing studies and publications to improve the
availability and understanding of the existing evidence. In this systematic review, we
will provide an overview of the effects GM regulations and trade restrictions may have
on the competitiveness of different partner countries and their corresponding sectors.
This detailed protocol will be used to collect, analyze and synthesize the available
evidence and describe how this question will be answered.
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Like all systematic reviews, this systematic review starts with a specific question that
can be addressed in structured and scientific manner. In this case, the research question
will be as follows:
7
What is the impact of trade restrictions of GM products in different countries on the
competitiveness of different partner countries and corresponding sectors in comparison to
a situation where there are no restrictions on GM trade?
This overarching research question can be framed using the PICO/PECO model which
help researcher to define the scope and components of the question (see the table
below).
PICO/PECO
Population
Description
All countries and corresponding sectors,
including:
1. Europe,
2. North America (excluding Mexico),
3. Latin America & Caribbean,
4. Asia,
5. Africa
6. Australia & other countries
Distinction is made between:
a) trade between developed countries
b) trade between developed countries
and developing countries
c) trade between developing countries
Intervention
Trade restrictions on GM products
Any type GM technology
Any type of GM crop
Outcome
Competitiveness of farmers, processing
firms and innovating firms
Control
Situation with no trade restrictions on GM
crops.
The impact on competiveness will be reviewed by searching for studies using the search
terms detailed in section 3.1 and utilizing the inclusion and exclusion criteria detailed in
section 3.2.
8
3. METHODS
This section illustrates the methodology which is applied to this systematic review. It
provides details of the components of the systematic review methodology, in particular:

Description of the search strategy, choice of databases, search string, search
terms and other search methods

Description of the criteria applied in order to determine the inclusion and
exclusion of primary studies

Description of the methods used to retrieve information from the primary studies

Description of the critical appraisal tool to assess the risk of bias

Description of the envisaged data synthesis
3.1.
Search strategy
In the following section we will provide the databases and search strings that we will
use. However, it should be noted that the databases and search strings could be
reviewed in the course of the systematic review. Any changes to the databases and
search strings will be documented in the full systematic review report. The following
search strategy will be followed and adapted to the search requirements of each
individual database:

Specialist systematic review databases:
o Collaborations for Environmental Evidence Library
o Campbell Library
o Cochrane Library

Specialist literature databases:
o Econlit
9
o RePEc (Research Papers in Economics)
o AgEcon
o ISI Web of Knowledge (Social Sciences Citation Index subset)
o Scopus
o JSTOR

Working paper series from major international organizations:
o The European Commission (EC)
o The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)
o Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
o The World Trade Organization (WTO)
o United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
o The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
o The World Bank

Hand search of the following key academic journals:
o American Journal of Agricultural Economics
o European Review of Agricultural Economics
o Agricultural Economics
o Journal of Agricultural Economics

Other:
o Google scholar (hit retrieval will be limited to the first 100 documents
resulting from each search due to time and budget constraints)
o GMO Compass
o References included in the studies for which the full text fulfilled the
inclusion/exclusion criteria
10
Searches will start with broad parameters derived from our research question and
inclusion/ exclusion criteria. We will use EndNote © to store all of our literature
searches. The initial searches are limited to titles and abstracts.
The following search terms are proposed for the literature search.
Genetic* modif*
Competitiveness
OR Trade
OR Genetic* engineer*
OR Productivity
OR Non-tariff
OR GM*
OR Efficiency
OR Import ban
OR transgen*
OR BT
AND
OR herbicide$toleran*
OR Production cost
OR Profitability
OR Market Share
AND
OR Mandatory labeling
OR insect$resistan*
OR biotech*
We carried out a preliminary scoping on these search terms for which the results are
reported in the table below. The first 100 articles returned were screened to assess the
relevance of the articles and assess the usefulness of the search string tested. While for
the first wide search string A only 8 studies classified as potentially relevant based on a
screening of the abstract, 28 studies classified as potentially relevant for search string D.
Note that we have limited this initial scoping to only one database, AgEcon, which is
commonly used in socio-economics.
In terms of accessibility and publication date, we will only include studies in English for
which it is possible to retrieve the full-text and that are published after 1994. We will
limit the number of studies that will be included in the systematic review in this way due
to time and budget constraints.
11
Table: Scoping in AgEcon (23 October 2013) and the number of hits
Id.
Specification of the search
string
Number Number Comments
of hits
of hits
(Title)
(full)
346
739
Search string too broad
but
yields
relevant
publications
to
this
systematic review
A
(“genetic* modif*" OR "GM*" OR
"transgen*" OR "BT" OR
"herbicide$toleran*" OR
"insect$resistan*" OR "biotech*")
B
(“genetic* modif*" OR "GM*" OR
"transgen*" OR "BT" OR
"herbicide$toleran*" OR
"insect$resistan*" OR "biotech*")
AND
("competitiveness" OR
"productivity" OR "efficiency" OR
"production cost" OR
"profitability" OR "market
share")
258
550
C
(“genetic* modif*" OR "GM*" OR
"transgen*" OR "BT" OR
"herbicide$toleran*" OR
"insect$resistan*" OR "biotech*")
AND
("trade" OR "import ban" OR
"non-tariff" OR "mandatory
labeling")
47
135
D
(“genetic* modif*" OR "GM*" OR
"transgen*" OR "BT" OR
"herbicide$toleran*" OR
"insect$resistan*" OR "biotech*")
AND
("competitiveness" OR
"productivity" OR "efficiency" OR
"production cost" OR
"profitability" OR "market
share")
AND
("trade" OR "import ban" OR
"non-tariff" OR "mandatory
labeling")
36
104
Search
string
more
appropriate and yields
relevant studies, but also
includes for example
studies on farm-level
effects unrelated to trade
which are not of interest
for
this
systematic
review. Therefore it is
recommended to further
narrow the search by
including
additional
search terms.
Search
string
more
appropriate and yields
relevant studies, but also
includes for example
more general studies on
trade regulation which
are not of interest for
this systematic review.
Therefore
it
is
recommended to further
narrow the search by
including
additional
search terms.
Search string yields
relevant publications and
is not too broad
12
3.2.
Criteria for including studies in the review
In the following section, we will provide first inclusion criteria and then exclusion
criteria. We will review these inclusion/exclusion criteria after a 10% sample is
completed at both “Title and Abstract” and “Full Text” literature filtering stage, to assure
that we capture all possible relevant research for the systematic review. Any changes to
these criteria will be documented in the full systematic review report.

Inclusion criteria
1. Relevant geographical coverage: We will include studies of all geographical
regions in the world, including Europe, North America (excluding Mexico), Latin
America & the Caribbean, Asia, Africa, Australia and other countries not
belonging to the before mentioned regions. However, a distinction will be made
whether the study concerns trade between developed countries; trade between
developed countries and developing countries; and trade between developing
countries. Developing countries will be defined based on the distinction made by
World Bank.2
2. Relevant interventions: The key interventions of interest include all
interventions that create trade barriers with respect to the trade of GM products
between two countries or regions. In principle, this includes all interventions that
create artificial prices on the domestic market, such as agricultural subsidies
(whereby countries attempt to protect their agricultural industries from outside
competition by creating artificial low prices for their agricultural goods); taxes
As defined currently (September 2013) by the World Bank, economies are divided according to 2012 GNI
per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. The groups are: (A) Developing countries,
which include low income, $1,035 or less; lower middle income, $1,036 - $4,085 - countries; and (B)
Developed countries, which includes upper middle income, $4,086 - $12,615; and high income,$12,616 or
more - countries.
2
13
and tariffs; non-tariff barriers (such as regulatory legislation, labeling and quota)
and any other governmental market intervention resulting in artificial prices.
However, given the specificity of our research question we restrict ourselves to
the interventions which specifically target GM products and not conventional
crops. This implies that we will mainly focus on non-tariff barriers, restricting
specifically the trade of GM products. The trade restrictions that we will consider
are an import ban on GM products, a de facto moratorium on GM products and
mandatory labeling of GM products. All types of GM technology (Bt crops, HT
crops etc.) and all types of GM crops (cotton, wheat, rapeseed etc.) will be
considered.
3. Relevant outcomes: We will include studies that analyze the impact of trade
restrictions on competitiveness in trading countries. The restrictions will be
analyzed at different levels, i.e. on the level of the farmers, processing and
innovating firms or on country level.
4. Relevant comparator: We will compare to a situation where there are no trade
restrictions for GM products.
5. Relevance to types of study design: We will include all studies that provide
quantitative and qualitative evidence on the impact of trade restrictions on
competitiveness. We will include studies that empirically estimate the causal
effect as well as studies that only detect correlation.

Exclusion criteria
1. Studies for which the full text is not available/accessible.
2. Studies for which the full text is published in another language than English.
3. Studies published before 1994.
14
3.3.
Selection of studies
Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be applied successively to (A) titles and abstracts,
and (B) full text during the literature screening process.
The full text will be obtained for those studies for which abstract and title appear to
meet the criteria (category “included”) or where we have insufficient information to
exclude the study based on a screening of the title and the abstract (category “pending”).
Any documents for which the full text cannot be obtained will be cited in a second
database and reported in the appendix of the systematic review document. The
inclusion/ exclusion criteria will then be re-applied to the full text and those that did not
meet the initial criteria will be excluded for the final synthesis.
The review team will take the appropriate steps to reduce the researcher bias and
ensure that all relevant literature is include in the systematic review, bearing in mind
time and budget constraints. In the first stage (screening of the title and abstract), a first
reviewer will apply the inclusion/ exclusion criteria to titles and abstracts, a second
reviewer will then independently screen the studies the first reviewer excluded to
ensure that no relevant studies have been accidently left out of the systematic review. In
the second stage (screening of the full text), a similar approach will be taken. Any
disagreement between the reviewers will be adjudicated by a third reviewer.
In addition, a kappa test will be carried out in order to ensure consistency between
reviewers with respect to the included studies. In general, kappa values between 0.40
and 0.59 have been considered to reflect fair agreement, between 0.60 and 0.74 to
reflect good agreement and 0.75 or more to reflect excellent agreement. We will take a
kappa value of 0,60 as a cut-off point for our analysis.
15
3.4.
Potential effect modifiers and reason for heterogeneity
In many cases it may be difficult to disentangle the effects of trade restrictions of GM
products on the competitiveness of farms, processing firms and innovating firms from
other changes in global food and commodity markets. These factors that may affect
competiveness include for example policy/regulatory measures that affect input costs
(for example for fuel, agri-chemicals), but also changes in world commodity prices which
affect economic performance and hence competitiveness.
Another potential source of heterogeneity can occur when studies using individual data
(e.g. firm level data) are compared to studies using aggregate data (e.g. sector or
country-level data). When using individual data it is possible that there is large
heterogeneity between the individuals. For example, some farmers may gain a lot from
the GM technology while others may have losses due to differences in physical and
economic conditions on-farm. As result, comparing studies using individual data and
studies using aggregate data may lead to ‘homogeneity bias”. In this systematic review
‘homogeneity bias’ will probably be limited as we will focus on the aggregate effects.
3.5.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
The quality of a study depends on the potential of bias in the included studies due to
poor designing, implementing and/or reporting. To reduce this bias, we will rank the
included studies according to risk of bias or quality (high, medium and low quality)
using an appraisal form (Appendix 1).
The appraisal form will be used to classify the study quality according to details of its
reporting, data collection methods, data analysis methods, the way in which conclusions
are draw in the study and any ethical concerns. This information will be synthesized in
16
four “domain quality indicators ((1) reporting, (2) methodology, (3) analysis and
interpretation of the results and (4) ethical concerns). The “domain quality indicators”
will then be used to divide the studies in three overall quality categories:
1. High Quality: studies that use sound theoretical, empirical and/or modeling
techniques and that are well-documented – Plausible bias unlikely to seriously
alter the results
2. Medium Quality: studies with the features of high quality studies, but some
important weaknesses (e.g. insufficient robustness checks, vagueness in the
reporting) – Plausible bias that raises some doubts on the results
3. Low Quality: studies that are based on inadequately methods, have no controls
for confounding variables, have omitted sources of data, etc. – Plausible bias that
seriously weakens the results
All studies will be included in the review, clearly specifying the potential weaknesses of
the included studies. In addition, in order to assess the risk of bias due to quality
differences between different studies, we will perform a data analysis on different
subsamples, including respectively all studies, only studies of high and medium quality
and only studies of high quality.
In order to ensure consistency between reviewers in the quality assessment process,
two reviewers will compare a subset of at least 10% of the included studies. Any
disagreement between the reviewers will be adjudicated by a third reviewer.
The study quality will be assessed at the same time that the screening at full text is
taking place and the coding form is fulfilled. The draft appraisal form is presented in
Appendix 1 and will be integrated with the coding form into one document, such that
reviewers only have to complete one integrated form per study.
17
3.6.
Data extraction strategy
Studies, that are screened at full text and that according to inclusion/ exclusion criteria
should be included in the systematic review will then be scrutinized using a coding form.
The information extracted using the coding form will be used to describe some key
characteristics of the included studies, such as geographical coverage, population, type
of methods used etc. The draft coding form is presented in Appendix 2 and will be
integrated with the appraisal form. The extracted information will then be used in the
narrative synthesis of the evidence. Note that we expect that the heterogeneity in the
existing literature will not allow us to perform an analysis (e.g. meta-analysis) on the
data obtained from the selected studies.
In order to ensure consistency between reviewers in the data extraction process, a
subset of at least 10% of the included studies will be compared by two reviewers. Any
disagreement between the reviewers will be adjudicated by a third reviewer.
3.7.
Data Synthesis
We will undertake a narrative data synthesis. In this synthesis we will describe the
impact that trade restrictions may have on the competitiveness of different countries
and their corresponding sectors in comparison to a situation where there are no
restrictions on the trade of GM crops. Tables and figures illustrating the existing
evidence will be produced depending on the outcome of the literature evaluation. Data
can be grouped according geographical region, type of GM technology studied, study
design, study methodology, etc.
18
Based on preliminary literature search, the extracted data are likely to be very
heterogeneous in terms of the outcomes reported, the study design, the population, etc.
This heterogeneity will make a quantitative meta-analysis highly unlikely and therefore
we have chosen to provide a narrative synthesis of the studies included in the systematic
review. In addition, we will perform sensitivity analyses on different subgroups. These
subgroups can be based on geographical location, population included, study quality and
type of study (published or not).
Finally, in case that we judge that the included studies would somehow be comparable
and a quantitative meta-analysis would produce meaningful results, a detailed strategy
for data analysis will be developed and documented in the final systematic review
report.
4. TIMELINE
This section will provide estimates of the start and end dates for the following stages.
However, these dates could be subjected to changes as they depend on the overall
progress of the GRACE project.
19
Start date
End date
External peer review of the protocol
01/03/2014
01/05/2014
Study search and obtaining studies
01/05/2014
01/12/2014
Assessment of study relevance
01/12/2014
01/04/2015
and
01/04/2015
01/07/2015
Preparation of the draft systematic
01/07/2015
01/11/2015
the
01/11/2015
01/12/2015
evidence
01/12/2015
01/02/2016
Study
quality
assessment
extraction of information
review
Internal
GRACE
review
of
systematic review
External
review
of
the
systematic review
5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The review team declares that there is no conflict of interest.
6. AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The review team acknowledges the financial and administrative support from the FP7
Collaborative Project GRACE 311957.
20
7. APPENDIX 1: Appraisal form
1. Reporting
1.1 Is the research question clearly stated?
1.2 Is the economic importance of the
research question clearly stated?
Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
1.3 Is the data collection process and the
source(s) of the data clearly described?
Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
1.4 Is the
subsamples)
illustrated?
sample
clearly
(and potential
described and
Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
1.5 Are the data analysis methods clearly
described and justified in relation to the
question(s) addressed?
Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
Overall quality wrt reporting
High
– All criteria are met
Medium
– One/more criteria are partly met
Low
– One/more criteria are not met
21
2 Methods used for the analysis
2.1. Do the authors provide a clear Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
explanation of the model/research
design that is used in the analysis?
2.2 Was the choice of the model/research
design appropriate for answering the
research question and the conduct of the
study?
2.3 To what extent are the model/research
design and the methods employed able to
rule out any other sources of error/bias
which would lead to alternative
explanations for the findings of the
study?
Yes/No (Please specify)
A lot/A little/Not at all
(Please specify)
2.4 Do the authors provide a clear
explanation of all variables included in
the analysis?
Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
2.5 Do the authors provide descriptive
statistics (mean and variance) for the
variables of interest?
Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
Overall quality wrt the methodology used in High
the analysis
– All criteria are met
Medium
– One/more criteria are partly met
Low
– One/more criteria are not met
22
3. Analysis and interpretation of the results
3.1 Do the authors provide details on the
statistical tests and confidence intervals
for the variables of interest?
3.2 Do the authors perform sensitivity
analyses and do they clearly document
the results of these analyses?
Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
3.3 Do the results of the sensitivity tests
confirm the results of the baseline model.
If not, do the authors discuss this
discrepancy?
Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
3.4 Do the authors explicitly discuss
direction and magnitude of the potential
bias?
3.5 How generalizable are the results?
3.6 Are the conclusions and/ or
recommendations of the study justified
and based on the study results?
Yes/No/NA (Please specify)
Please specify
Please specify
Overall quality wrt the analysis and the High
interpretation of the results
– All criteria are met
Medium
– One/more criteria are partly met
Low
– One/more criteria are not met
23
4 Ethical concerns
4.1 Was there a statement disclosing the Yes/No (Please specify)
source of funding for the study?
4.2 Could there arise a conflict of interest Yes/No (Please specify)
due to the source of funding for the
study?
4.2 Are there ethical concerns about the
authors or the way the study has been
undertaken?
Yes/No (Please specify)
Overall quality wrt the ethical concerns
High
– All criteria are met
Medium
– One/more criteria are partly met
Low
– One/more criteria are not met
Overall quality of the study
High
– Plausible bias unlikely to
seriously alter the results
–
All
subdomain
quality
assessments are met (high
quality)/ Only one subdomain
quality
assessment
only
partially met (medium quality)
Medium
– Plausible bias that raises some
doubts on the results
– Several subdomain quality
assessments are partly met
(medium quality)/ Only one
subdomain quality assessment
not met (low quality)
Low
– Plausible bias that seriously
weakens the results
– More than one subdomain
quality assessment not met
(low quality)
24
8. APPENDIX 2: Coding form
0. Identification code
1. General descriptive information
1.1 Title
1.2 Authors
1.3 Sate (month, year)
1.4 Publication status
1.5 Type of publication
1.6 Source
Published or forthcoming in refereed
journal or book
Published or forthcoming in nonrefereed journal or book
In press
Unpublished
Unknown
Article
Chapter in a book
Working paper
Conference presentation
Government or institutional report
Other (please specify)
Electronic database
Hand search
Reference from reference list of an
included study
2. Research questions
and/ or hypotheses
2.1 Research questions
2.2 Hypotheses
Please specify (if necessary, clearly
indicate which aspects are the
authors’ interpretation)
Please specify (if necessary, clearly
indicate which aspects are the
authors’ interpretation)
25
3. Description of the intervention studied
3.1 Intervention
3.2 Geographical coverage
3.3 Type of trade relation investigated
3.4 Type of GM technology
3.5 Type of crop
Import ban
Moratorium
Mandatory labeling
Other (please specify)
Please specify
Trade between developed countries
Trade between developing countries
Trade
between
developed
and
developing countries
Bt resistant
HT tolerant
Other (please specify)
Please specify
4. Outcome assessed
4.1 Outcome assessed
Total factor productivity
Partial productivity measure
(please specify)
Export productivity
Other (please specify)
4.2 Supply chain partner affected
Agricultural sector
Processing sector
Innovating sector
Country level
Other (please specify)
26
5. Data and study design
5.1 Type of data collected
5.2 Origin of data collected
Please specify
Survey
Own collection
Other (please specify)
Statistical information
Other (please specify)
5.3 Sample scheme
Please specify
5.4 Study design
Quantitative studies
Cross section study
Panel data study
Time series study
Other (please specify)
Qualitative study
Narrative
Observation
Survey
Case study
Other (please specify)
Theoretical study
Modeling study
Other (please specify)
27
6. Results and outcome
6.1 Main results
Please specify (if necessary, clearly
indicate which aspects are the authors’
interpretation)
6.2 Impact
6.3 Robustness checks
Quantitative studies
Average impact coefficient (in the
preferred specifications)
Standard deviation of the average
impact
Significance
Qualitative studies
Strong impact
Low impact
No impact
Not applied
Controlling for different confounding
variables
Alternative model specification
Methods used to control for
endogeneity (please specify)
Other (please specify)
6.4 Other studies cited that refute or
confirm the results?
No
Not clear
Yes, to confirm (please specify if
included in review)
Yes, to refute (please specify if
included in review)
Yes, ambiguous results (please specify
if included in review)
28
9. REFERENCES
Ahearn M, Culver D, Schoney R: Usefulness and limitations of COP estimates for
evaluating international competitiveness: a comparison of Canadian and U.S.
wheat. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1990, 72(5): 1283-1291.
Anderson K, Jackson L, McMahon J, Desta M: GMO's: trade and welfare impacts of current
policies and prospects for reform. Research Handbook on the WTO Agriculture
Agreement: New and Emerging Issues in International Agricultural Trade Law; 2012.
Anderson K, Jackson L: Some implications of GM food technology policies for SubSaharan Africa. Journal of African Economies 2005, 14: 385–410.
Cadot O, Suwa-Eisenmann A, Traça D: Trade-related issues in the regulation of
genetically modified organism. Paper prepared for the workshop on European and
American Perspectives on Regulating Genetically Engineered Food, Insead, 7/8 June
2001.
Choi E: International Trade in Genetically Modified Products. Staff General Research
Papers 31265, Iowa State University, Department of Economics; 2010.
Clive J: ISAA Report on Global Status of Biotech Crops. International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAA); 2012.
Curtis K, McCluskey J, Swinnen J: Differences in global risk perceptions of
biotechnology and the political economy of the media. International Journal of Global
Environmental Issues 2008, 8(1): 77-89.
Disdier A, Fontagne L: Trade impact of European measure on GMOs condemned by
the WTO panel. Paper prepared for presentation at the 12th EAAE Congress “People,
Food and Environments: Global Trends and European Strategies”, Gent (Belgium), 2629 August 2008.
European Commission: European
Commission, Brussels; 2009.
Competitiveness
Report
2008,
European
Furtan W, Gray R and Holzman J: Regulatory Approval Decisions in the Presence of
Market Externalities: The Case of Genetically Modified Wheat. Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics 2005, 30 (1): 12-28.
Gruère G, Bouet A, Mevel S: Genetically modified food and international trade: The
case of India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines. IFPRI Working Paper 740,
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); 2007.
Gruère G: An Analysis of Trade Related International Regulations of Genetically
Modified Food and their Effects on Developing Countries. Environment and
Production Technology Division (EPTD) Discussion Paper 147. Washington D.C.:
International Food Policy Research Institute; 2006.
29
Latruffe L: Competitiveness, Productivity and Efficiency in the Agricultural and
Agri- Food Sectors. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 30, OECD
Publishing; 2010.
McCluskey J, Swinnen J. Political economy of the media and consumer perceptions
of biotechnology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2004, 86(5): 1230-1237.
Moschini G, Lapan H, Sobolevsky A: Roundup Ready Soybeans and Welfare Effects in
the Soybean Complex. Agribusiness 2000, 16: 33-55.
Nielsen C, Robinson S, Thierfelder K: Genetic engineering and Trade: Panacea or
dilemma for developing countries. World Development 2001, 29: 1307–24.
Otsuka Y: Socioeconomic considerations relevant to the sustainable development,
use and control of genetically modified foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology
2003, 14: 294–318
Sharples J: Cost of production and productivity in analyzing trade and
competitiveness. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1990, 72(5): 1278-1282.
Swinnen J, Vandemoorrtele T: Policy gridlock or future change? The political
economy dynamics of EU biotechnology regulation. AgBioForum 2010, 13(4): 291-6.
Taylor R, DeVuyst E, Koo W: The Potential Impacts of GM Wheat on United States
and Northern Plains Wheat Trade. Agricultural and Applied Economics Report,
Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota; 2003.
Tothova M, Oehmke J: Genetically modified food standards as trade barriers:
harmonization, compromise and sub-global agreements. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Industrial Organization 2004, 2.
Vigiani M, Olper A: GMO Regulations, International Trade and the Imperialism of
Standards. LICOS Discussion Papers 25510, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic
Performance, KU Leuven; 2012.
Zarrilli S: International Trade in GMOs and GM products, National and Multilateral
Legal Frameworks’. Policy issues in international trade and commodity study series
No. 29, UNCTAD; 2005.
30