Socio-Economic Considerations and Potential Implications for Gene-Edited Crops


  • Karinne Ludlow Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria
  • Stuart Smyth University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
  • Jose Falck-Zepeda International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC



barriers to innovation, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, conceptual clarity, innovation, risk


Regulatory clarity and efficiency are increasingly important for the successful commercialization of technologies resulting from public and private R&D investments. This article examines recent developments in the movement away from mostly science-based risk assessment regulatory and variety approval systems focusing on human and animal health and environmental safety to hybrid systems that include assessment of socio-economic considerations allowed for under the auspices of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. We propose that socio-economic consideration assessments can be grouped into three methodological categories: empirically based, legally grounded and consensus approaches. Our exploration of developments in the three categories reveals gaps in data, consistency and methodology rigor, that must be addressed for efficient and reliable socio-economic consideration assessment. We assess the potential impacts of these gaps on the regulation of gene-edited crop varieties, concluding that if gene-edited crops are regulated as genetically modified crops, they will endure the same fate, that is, lengthy regulatory approval processes and failure to be commercialized. The end result being that the regulatory burdens in potential adopting and food insecure countries will prevent important new crop varieties from reaching farmers and producers for their use.


Adenle, A. A., Aworh, O. C., Akromah, R., & Parayil, G. (2012). Developing GM super cassava for improved health and food security: Future challenges in Africa. Agriculture & Food Security, 1(11), 1-11.

Aerni, P. (2013). Resistance to agricultural biotechnology: The importance of distinguishing between weak and strong public attitudes. Biotechnology Journal, 8(10), 1129-1132.

Anderson, K., & Jackson, L. A. (2005). GM crop technology and trade restraints: Economic implications for Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 49(3), 263-281.

Aubry, S. (2019). The future of digital sequence information for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10.

Bagley, M. A. (2018). “Ask me no questions”: The struggle for disclosure of cultural and genetic resource utilization in design. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 20(4), 975-1025.

Bennett, J., & Birol, E. (2010) Using Choice Experiments to Investigate Environmental Conservation and Economic Development Trade-Offs. In J. Bennett, & E. Birol (Eds.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries Implementation, Challenges and Policy Implications. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Biden, S., Smyth, S. J., & Hudson, D. (2018). The economic and environmental cost of delayed GM crop adoption: The case of Australia’s GM canola moratorium. GM Crops and Food, 9(1) 13-20.

Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2017). Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops and Food, 8(2), 117-147.

Brookes, G., Taheripour, F., & Tyner, W. E. (2017a). The contribution of glyphosate to agriculture and potential impact of restrictions on use at the global level. GM Crops and Food, 8(4), 216-228.

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. (2019). Socio-economic Considerations (Article 26 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety). Retrieved October 15, 2020 from

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. (2019). Note des Authorités Françaises. Retrieved October 15, 2020 from

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2019). Amendments to the Regulations Relating to a Prohibition Against the Placing on the Market of Certain Genetically Modified Products in Norway. Retrieved October 15, 2020 from

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. (2019). Preliminary Experience on Socioeconomic Consideration Voluntary Guidance National Biosafety Management Agency, Nigeria’s Experience. Retrieved October 15, 2020 from

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. (2019). Report of South African Experiences using the Voluntary Guidance on Socio-economic Considerations. Retrieved October 15, 2020 from

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. (2014). Global overview of information on socioeconomic considerations arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Socioeconomic Considerations Report. Retreived from

Charlebois, S., Somogyi, S., Music, J., & Cunningham, C. (2019). Biotechnology in food: Canadian attitudes towards genetic engineering in both plant- and animal-based foods. British Food Journal, 121(12), 3181-3192.

Comission on Genetic Modification. (2003). Towards an integrated framework for the assessment of social and ethical issues in modern biotechnology. CGM Report 030618-02.

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2019). Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Socio-Economic Considerations. Retreived October 15, 2020 from

Convention on Biological Diversity, Secretariat. (2010). Biodiversity indicators and the 2010 biodiversity target: Outputs, experiences and lessons learnt from the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. CBD Technical Series(53), 8-196.

Council of the European Union. (2019). DRAFT COUNCIL DECISION Requesting the Commission to Submit a Study on the Union’s Options for Addressing the Legal Situation of New Plant Breeding Techniques Taking into Account the Existing Legal Framework Provided by Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council and the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-528/16. Reterived October 15, 2020 from

Dederer, H-G., & Hamburger, D. (2019). In H-G. Dederer, & D. Hamburger (Eds.), Regulation of Genome Editing in Plant Biotechnology. Springer International Publishing.

Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2019). 8th Session of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: Highlights for Saturday, 16 November 2019. Retreived October 15, 2020 from

Einsiedel, E. E., & Medlock, J. (2005). A public consultation on plant molecular farming. AgBioforum, 8(1), 26-32. ce=1&isAllowed=y

Entine, J., Eriksson, D., Felipe, M. S. S., Groenewald, J-H., Kershen, D. L., Lema, M., McHughen, A., Nepomuceno, A. L., Ohsawa, R., Ordonio, R. L., Parrott, W. A., Purnhagen, K. P., Quemada, H., Ramage, C., Slamet-Loedin, I., Smyth, S. J., Wasmer, M. S., & Wray-Cahen, D. (2020). Regulatory approaches for genome edited agricultural plants in select countries and jurisdictions around the world. Transgenic Research. Manuscript submitted for publication.

European Commission. (2019). Statement by the Group of Chief Science Advisors. A scientific perspective on the regulatory status of products derived from gene editing and the implications for the GMO Directive.

European Commission. (2016). The EU Special Incentive Arrangement for Sustainable Development and Good Governance ('GSP+') covering the period 2014 - 2015. Retreived January 19, 2021 from

European Commission. (2015). Framework for the Socio-economic Analysis of the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops. Publications Office of the European Union.

Falck-Zepeda, J. B., & Zambrano, P. (2011). Socio-economic considerations in biosafety and biotechnology decision making: The Cartagena Protocol and national biosafety frameworks. Review of Policy Research, 28(2), 171-195.

Falck-Zepeda, J., Smyth, S. J., & Ludlow, K. (2016). Zen and the art of attaining conceptual and implementation clarity: Socio-economic considerations, biosafety and decision-making. The Estey Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 17(2), 117-136.

Frewer, L. J., & Shepherd, R. (1995). Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology. Agriculture and Human Values, 12, 48–57.

Friedrichs, S., Takasu, Y., Kearns, P., Dagallier, B., Oshima, R., Schofield, J., & Moreddu, C. (2019). Meeting report of the OECD Conference on “Genome Editing: Applications in Agriculture—Implications for Health, Environment and Regulation”. Transgenic Research, 28(3), 419-463.

Frisvold, G., & Reeves, J. (2015). Genetically modified crops: International trade and trade policy effects. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics, 3(2), 1-13.

Goddard, E., & Muringai, V. (2015). Trust, fairness, and acceptance of food technologies. No 264423, Project Report Series from University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology. Retreived October 29, 2020 from

Gruère, G. P. (2013). Alternatives for coexistence of GM and organic cotton production in Uganda. In D. Horna, P. Zambrano, & J. Falck-Zepeda, (Eds.), Socioeconomic Considerations in Biosafety Decisionmaking - Methods and Implementation IFPRI Research Monograph.

International Service for the Acquistion of Agri-biotech Applications. (2020). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2019. Retreived January 19, 2021 from

Kerr, W. A., Smyth, S. J., Phillips, P. W. B., & Phillipson, M. (2014). Conflicting rules for the international trade of GM products: Does international law provide a solution?. AgBioForum, 17(2), 105-122.

Klümper, W., & Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE, 9(11), 1-7.

Laird, S. A., & Wynberg, R. P. (2018) Fact-finding and scoping study on digital sequence information on genetic resources in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol. Retreived October 30, 2019 from

Lassoued, R., Phillips, P. W. B., Smyth, S. J., & Hesseln, H. (2019). Estimating the cost of regulation genome edited crops: Expert judgment and overconfidence. GM Crops and Food, 10(1), 44-62.

Lema, M. A. (2019). Regulatory aspects of gene editing in Argentina. Transgenic Research, 28, 147–150.

Ludlow, K. (2019). Australian regulatory response to genome edited plants. Journal of Law Information and Science, 25(2), 1-29.

Ludlow, K., Smyth, S. J., & Falck-Zepeda, J. (2016). Consistency of assessment of socio-economic considerations under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety with other international obligations. The Estey Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 17(2), 137-172.

Ludlow, K., Smyth, S. J., & Falck-Zepeda, J. (2014). In K. Ludlow, S. J. Smyth, & J. Falck-Zepeda (Eds.), Socio-Economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation. Springer.

Lusk, J. L., McFadden, B. R., & Wilson, N. (2018). Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?. Food Policy, 78, 81-90.

McCluskey, J. J., & Swinnen, J. F. (2004). Political economy of the media and consumer perceptions of biotechnology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(5), 1230-1237.

McFadden, B. R., & Lusk, J. L. (2016). What consumers don’t know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. The FASEB Journal, 30(9), 3091-3096.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Overview. Retreived October 19, 2020 from

Myskja, B. K., & Myhr, A. I. (2020). Non-safety assessments of genome-edited organisms: Should they be included in regulation?. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2601-2627.

National Academies of Science. (2016). Genetically-Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects. Retreived October 19, 2020 from

Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board. (2003). Sustainability, Benefit to the Community and Ethics in the Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Implementation of the Concepts set out in Sections 1 and 10 of the Norwegian Gene Technology Act. Retreived from nsnotat_baerekraft_engelsk.pdf

Paarlberg, R. (2008) Starved for Science: How biotechnology is being kept out of Africa. Harvard University Press.

Phillips, D. M., & Hallman, W. K. (2013). Consumer risk perceptions and marketing strategy: The case of genetically modified food. Psychology and Marketing, 30(9), 739–748.

Pixley, K. V., Falck-Zepeda, J. B., Giller, K. E., Glenna, L. L., Gould, F., Mallory-Smith, C. A., Stelly, D. M., & Stewart, C. N. (2019). Genome editing, gene drives, and synthetic biology: Will they contribute to disease-resistant crops, and who will benefit? Annual Review of Phytopathology, 57, 8.1–8.24.

Qaim, M., & Kouser, S. (2013). Genetically modified crops and food security. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e64879. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064879

Rozen, I. (2017). Removing a major CRISPR licensing roadblock in agriculture. Retreived January 19, 2021 from

Safi, S., Thiessen, T., & Schmailzl, K. J. G. (2018). Acceptance and resistance of new digital technologies in medicine: Qualitative study. JMIR Research Protocols, 7(12), e11072.

Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., & Rozin, P. (2016). Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 315-324.

Smale, M. (2006). In M. Smale (Ed.), Valuing Crop Biodiversity: On-farm Genetic Resources and Economic Change. CABI Publishing.

Smale, M., Zambrano, P., Gruère, G., Falck-Zepeda, J. B., Matuschke, I., Horna, D., Nagarajan, L., Yerramareddy, I., & Jones, H. (2009). Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first decade: Approaches, findings, and future directions. Food Policy Review(10).

Smyth, S. J., Gleim, S, & Lubieniechi, S. (2020). Regulatory barriers to innovative plant breeding in Canada. Frontiers in Genome Editing, 2.

Smyth, S. J., Macall, D. M., Phillips, P. W. B., & de Beer, J. (2020). Implications of biological information digitization: Access and benefit sharing of plant genetic resources. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23, 267-287.

Smyth, S. J. (2020). The human health benefits from GM crops. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 18(4), 887-888.

Smyth, S. J. (2019). Global status of the regulation of genome editing technologies. CAB Reviews, 14(21), 1-6.

Smyth, S. J. (2019). The Potential for Genome Editing in Plant Breeding. In P. Ferranti, E. M. Berry, & J. R. Anderson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability, 3, 165-170.

Smyth, S. J., & Falck-Zepeda, J. (2013). Socio-economic considerations and international trade agreements. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 14(1), 18-38.

Smyth, S. J., McDonald, J., & Falck-Zepeda, J. (2014). Investment, regulation and uncertainty: Managing new plant breeding techniques. GM Crops and Food, 5(1), 1-14.

Thompson, P. B. (2007). In B. Thompson (Ed.). Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Voigt, B., & Münichsdofer, A. (2019). Regulation of Genome Editing in Plant Biotechnology: European Union. In H-G. Dederer, & D. Hamburger (Eds.). In Regulation of Genome Editing in Plant Biotechnology. Springer International Publishing

World Intellectual Property Organization. (2019). Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Fortieth Session Draft Report.

Yu Lim, G. (2019). Genome edited food products to go on sale in Japan, despite no labelling and safety provisions}. Retreived April 18, 2020 from ign=copyright

Yu, J., Hennessey, D. A., & Wu, F. (2020). The impact of Bt corn on aflatoxin-related insurance claims in the United States. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 10046.



2021-06-22 — Updated on 2021-06-24




Scientific Articles

How to Cite

Socio-Economic Considerations and Potential Implications for Gene-Edited Crops. (2021). Journal of Regulatory Science, 9(2), 1-11. (Original work published 2021)