Search

In the published article, an author name was incorrectly written as “Aantoniya Hauerwaas”. The correct spelling is “Antoniya Hauerwaas”. In addition, there was an error in the Funding statement. The correct Funding statement appears below: Funding This publication is part of the project Sustainable Co-Production [053.80.738] of the research programme [ERA-Net Cofund Action under the research and innovation programme Horizon 2020] “Tobacco as sustainable production platform of the natural biopolymer cyanophycin as co-product to oil and protein,” which is partly financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), the German Federal Ministry for education and research (BMBF) and by the Argentine government. Finally, the reference for Weisenfeld, U. et al., 2022 was incorrectly written as Weisenfeld, U., Hauerwaas, A., Elshiewy, O., Halder, P., Wesseler, J., Cingiz, K., Broer, I. (2022). Beyond Plastic – a turning point for green biotechnology? Research Policy. It should appear as Weisenfeld, U., Hauerwaas, A., Elshiewy, O., Halder, P., Wesseler, J., Cingiz, K., et al. (2022). Beyond Plastic – a Turning Point for Green Biotechnology? Research paper, under Review. The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

The production of food employs different kinds of biotechnologies, some of which are more controversial than others. The public and the agrifood sector have developed a number of responses to address their concerns about biotechnologies considered controversial. In this contribution the different strategies chosen by the agrifood sector in the EU in response to the introduction of new biotechnologies in the agrifood complex will be discussed. The contribution concentrates on the example of the introduction of genetically engineered crops and the strategic responses by the EU food industry, namely food processors and food retailers. The contribution concludes with an outlook on the future of the EU agrifood complex.

With the death of Prof. Vittorio Santaniello in the summer of 2007, the International Consortium for Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICABR) lost one of its most enthusiastic founders and most important contributors. This special issue celebrates Prof. Santaniello’s commitment to the establishment of an independent forum of discussion for agricultural biotechnology issues by collecting high-quality, peerreviewed scientific contributions to the ICABR Conference held June 12-14, 2008 in Ravello, Italy. The conference theme, The Future of Agricultural Biotechnology: Creative Destruction, Adoption, or Irrelevance? in Honor of Vittorio Santaniello, was an invitation to look at the current status of scientific knowledge in agricultural biotechnology and to the new challenges ahead. Participants from around the world found their way to the Amalfi Coast to present their contributions and begin to pave the road ahead. Their efforts were framed by seven excellent plenary sessions.

"The future institutional environment for the co-existence of genetically modified (GM) crops, conventional crops and organic crops in Europe combines measures of ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability rules. Against this background we ask the following two questions: How does ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability under irreversibility and uncertainty affect the adoption of GM crops? What are the implications for regional agglomeration of GM and non-GM crops? Ex-ante regulations and ex-post liabilities for using GM crops will induce additional costs. These costs are modelled in a classical way. The model is advanced by including irreversibility and uncertainty and taking into account transaction costs of negotiating possible solutions with neighbouring farmers which are assumed to be partially irreversible. The results show that the design of ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability increases the value of waiting and results in less immediate adoption of the GM technology. Additionally, the rules and regulations in the EU do provide incentives for the regional agglomeration of GM and non-GM crops that are mainly driven by the irreversibility effect of the ex-ante regulatory and ex-post liability costs." (author's abstract)

Banana is a staple crop in Uganda. Ugandans have the highest per capita consumption of cooking bananas in the world (Clarke 2003). However, banana production in Uganda is limited by several productivity con¬straints, such as insects, diseases, soil depletion, and poor agronomic practices. To address these constraints, the country has invested significant resources in research and development (R&D) and other publicly funded programs, pur¬suing approaches over both the short and long term. Uganda formally initi¬ated its short-term approach in the early 1990s; it involves the collection of both local and foreign germplasms for the evaluation and selection of cultivars tolerant to the productivity constraints. The long-term approach, launched in 1995, includes breeding for resistance to the productivity constraints using conventional breeding methods and genetic engineering. Genetic engineer¬ing projects in Uganda target the most popular and infertile cultivars that can¬not be improved through conventional (cross) breeding.